HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Vivienne Westwood uses Lo...

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:34 AM

Vivienne Westwood uses London Fashion Week to declare support for Assange

Source: The Telegraph

Dame Vivienne Westwood used a London Fashion Week show held at the Foreign Office to declare a message of support for Julian Assange.

By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor
16 Sep 2012

The veteran British fashion designer handed out T-shirts bearing her photo and the slogan “I’m Julian Assange” to models and celebrities in the front row.

Her move will be seen as provocative because the show was held in the headquarters of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, off Whitehall, which is caught in a diplomatic stand-off over the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition.

The model Jade Parfitt was photographed wearing one of the pro-Assange T-shirts during the event on Sunday afternoon.

Lorraine Candy, the editor-in-chief of Elle UK magazine, posted a picture of the model online, together with the message: “Jade in Assange supporter Tshirt V Westwood has designed! It's going to be controversial show at foreign office!”

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9546467/Vivienne-Westwood-uses-London-Fashion-Week-to-declare-support-for-Assange.html



hm ...

126 replies, 13324 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 126 replies Author Time Post
Reply Vivienne Westwood uses London Fashion Week to declare support for Assange (Original post)
reorg Sep 2012 OP
jberryhill Sep 2012 #1
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #4
KoKo Sep 2012 #8
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #11
KoKo Sep 2012 #15
bitchkitty Sep 2012 #24
Firebrand Gary Sep 2012 #2
DesertDiamond Sep 2012 #3
davidthegnome Sep 2012 #5
randome Sep 2012 #6
KoKo Sep 2012 #7
treestar Sep 2012 #9
Peace Patriot Sep 2012 #10
hack89 Sep 2012 #14
Peace Patriot Sep 2012 #17
hack89 Sep 2012 #18
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #19
hack89 Sep 2012 #20
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #21
hack89 Sep 2012 #22
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #23
hack89 Sep 2012 #25
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #27
hack89 Sep 2012 #29
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #30
hack89 Sep 2012 #31
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #33
hack89 Sep 2012 #34
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #37
hack89 Sep 2012 #38
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #39
hack89 Sep 2012 #40
reorg Sep 2012 #43
hack89 Sep 2012 #50
reorg Sep 2012 #56
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #44
hack89 Sep 2012 #47
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #57
reorg Sep 2012 #48
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #52
reorg Sep 2012 #55
reorg Sep 2012 #26
hack89 Sep 2012 #28
reorg Sep 2012 #42
hack89 Sep 2012 #46
reorg Sep 2012 #53
hack89 Sep 2012 #58
reorg Sep 2012 #60
hack89 Sep 2012 #61
reorg Sep 2012 #62
hack89 Sep 2012 #63
reorg Sep 2012 #65
hack89 Sep 2012 #67
freshwest Sep 2012 #97
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #98
hack89 Sep 2012 #102
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #105
hack89 Sep 2012 #107
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #109
hack89 Sep 2012 #110
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #111
hack89 Sep 2012 #112
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #113
hack89 Sep 2012 #114
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #115
hack89 Sep 2012 #116
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #118
hack89 Sep 2012 #119
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #120
hack89 Sep 2012 #121
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #122
hack89 Sep 2012 #123
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #124
hack89 Sep 2012 #125
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #126
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #13
hack89 Sep 2012 #32
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #35
hack89 Sep 2012 #36
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #41
hack89 Sep 2012 #45
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #49
hack89 Sep 2012 #51
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #54
hack89 Sep 2012 #59
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #66
hack89 Sep 2012 #68
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #69
hack89 Sep 2012 #70
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #71
hack89 Sep 2012 #72
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #73
hack89 Sep 2012 #74
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #75
hack89 Sep 2012 #76
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #77
hack89 Sep 2012 #78
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #79
hack89 Sep 2012 #80
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #81
hack89 Sep 2012 #82
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #83
hack89 Sep 2012 #84
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #85
hack89 Sep 2012 #86
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #87
hack89 Sep 2012 #88
reorg Sep 2012 #89
hack89 Sep 2012 #90
reorg Sep 2012 #91
hack89 Sep 2012 #93
reorg Sep 2012 #96
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #99
hack89 Sep 2012 #101
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #104
hack89 Sep 2012 #106
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #108
hack89 Sep 2012 #117
hack89 Sep 2012 #95
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #92
hack89 Sep 2012 #94
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #100
hack89 Sep 2012 #103
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #12
KoKo Sep 2012 #16
-..__... Sep 2012 #64

Response to reorg (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:46 AM

1. No - Designer uses Assange to get press during Fashion Week

Sounds like something Edina and Patsy would think of.

"Ooh, Wikileaks, dahling, yes...are they the ones who published Prince Harry's naked photos or Kate's tits?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:24 AM

4. She doesn't need side issue press coverage.

Her stuff stands alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 08:19 AM

8. Actually her show was to feature Climate Change....

from the article:

"The novelist Kathy Lette wrote on Twitter: “V Tongue-in-chic 4 foreign office. Models in T-shirts emblazoned with V. Westwood's face, sloganed -I'm Julian Assange.”

However when Dame Vivienne herself appeared on the catwalk, set up in the Grade I-listed Durbar Court of the Foreign Office building, she dropped a shroud to reveal a T-shirt with the words “Climate Revolution” on it.


Last month the 71-year-old designer, who came to prominence selling punk clothes with Malcolm McLaren, issued another public statement in support of Mr Assange.

The message, which included the phrase “we are all Julian Assange”, was delivered outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in Knightsbridge where he has been holed up for almost three months. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:24 PM

11. A picture of herself labelled "I'm Julian Assange" sure calls awareness to climate, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 08:42 PM

15. Yes...It was an incredible show of PRINCIPLES! That she did this

considering how esteemed she is in British Fashion World!

Good for her. And to show her 71 year old body in support of doing something about Climate Change is even Better!

to Vivienne Westwood!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 05:08 PM

24. That's Vivienne Westwood, fool!

She hardly needs gimmicks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 02:34 AM

2. Somewhat off topic, about Vivienne's line.

I love, love the mens cardigan! However its like $900, which is out of my league! But I still love it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 03:00 AM

3. WoW!!! She's awesome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:52 AM

5. Okay, but is there a reason to actually care?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:56 AM

6. If I was Assange, I'd care.

That picture of him on the t-shirt looks horrible! Maybe it's the angle but he looks like an old vampire!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 08:18 AM

7. According to the article, that's Vivienne Westwood's photo on T-Shirt

Last edited Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

The show was about Climate Change and that's Westwood in the picture on the right with the circle around her eye with the T-Shirt for "Climate Revolution."

From the article:

"The novelist Kathy Lette wrote on Twitter: “V Tongue-in-chic 4 foreign office. Models in T-shirts emblazoned with V. Westwood's face, sloganed -I'm Julian Assange.”

However when Dame Vivienne herself appeared on the catwalk, set up in the Grade I-listed Durbar Court of the Foreign Office building, she dropped a shroud to reveal a T-shirt with the words “Climate Revolution” on it.


Last month the 71-year-old designer, who came to prominence selling punk clothes with Malcolm McLaren, issued another public statement in support of Mr Assange.

The message, which included the phrase “we are all Julian Assange”, was delivered outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in Knightsbridge where he has been holed up for almost three months. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 08:21 AM

9. The office is not "caught in a diplomatic standoff"

That makes it sounds as though Julian did not create the situation with the help of Ecuador. They are doing nothing. The storming of the embassy is another one of Julian's not-happening dramas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 11:51 AM

10. The U.K. threatened IN WRITING to storm the Ecuadoran embassy!

That alone shows the U.S. poodle--the U.K.--to be suffering a hissy fit about their failure to GET JULIAN ASSANGE INTO CUSTODY to be "rendered" to their U.S. masters for whatever punishment they want to inflict for the crime of journalism.

When the Swedish government kicked out one prosecutor--who thought that the allegations against Assange were so flimsy and absurd, he dropped the case and told Assange he could leave Sweden--and brought in a more politically ambitious prosecutor who revived this ridiculous case and has refused to question Assange no matter how often Assange has made himself available for questioning, and HAS NO CASE against Assange (NO charges have been filed)--then Assange had PLENTY OF GODDAMN REASON to seek asylum!

Jeez. You are blaming the VICTIM. The man is being HUNTED by the Western Powers for the SAME 'CRIME' that the once great New York Times--now the New York Slimes--committed, long ago, in their days of courage and integrity, when they published the Pentagon Papers. The crime of journalism. The crime of FREE SPEECH.

The granting of asylum for political persecution and the threat of persecution is the right of every recognized government in the world. Julian Assange has the right of free speech--not to mention the associated rights of free assembly, travel, ownership/security of assets, presumption of innocence, habeas corpus and everything else we have ever stood for as a country-- and Ecuador has the right to grant him asylum to protect those rights. The UK refuses to acknowledge Ecuador's right to do this, by refusing to grant Assange passage to Ecuador. THAT is an "embassy standoff" created by the UK in their poodledom for the U.S.!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #10)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:55 PM

14. No they did not.

After Patino's brief appearance before reporters, Britain's Foreign Office issued a statement citing a 1987 British law it says permits the revocation of diplomatic status of a building if the foreign power occupying it "ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post."

Under international law, diplomatic posts are considered the territory of the foreign nation.

Asked by The Associated Press about Patino's characterization of Britain's warning, a Foreign Office official said via email that the letter "was not a threat" and was intended to clarify "all aspects of British law that Ecuador should be aware of." The official would not be identified by name, citing policy.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/assange-embassy-ecuador-britain_n_1786104.html

Ecuador twisted into to a threat to storm the embassy.

BTW - diplomatic asylum is not recognized by international law. You are confusing it with political asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 12:19 PM

17. You're saying it wasn't a threat? Aw, come on. You gotta be kidding.

The U.K.'s back-pedaling doesn't make it not a threat. All of Latin America was up in arms about it! It was as plain a threat as it could be.

And now the U.K. is acting just like the communist dictatorship of Hungary did, when they denied Cardinal Mindszenty passage out of Hungary, after the U.S. embassy granted Mindszenty asylum. They kept him holed up in the U.S. embassy for 15 years!

You think that's a good model of behavior for the U.K.?

It does tell us something, though, about the dictatorial mind-set of those who desperately want Assange in custody and the poodle mindset of those who tried to contrive it.

Bloody disgusting, is what it is. The set-up: not questioning him (repeatedly), not charging him with anything, telling him he could leave the country then pursuing him with a warrant "for questioning"; the U.K. court buying this crapola, then the U.K. threatening to storm the Ecuadoran embassy when Ecuador, very appropriately, granted him asylum and now the U.K. essentially holding him prisoner in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, just like Cardinal Mindszenty!

You gotta wonder what the political powers-that-be in Sweden and the U.K. got in exchange for running rampant over Assange's rights and dumping this bomb into the diplomatic community, that they might just storm and grab this man that they so desperately wanted in custody, who was not charged with any crime. Did they get their payoff? Was it withheld because they didn't succeed? What was the pay-off?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:34 PM

18. It was not a threat to storm the embassy - stop moving the goal posts

And your Assange timeline is wrong.

His lawyer was notified on 22 Sept 2010 by the prosecutor that Assange was to interviewed on the 28th. Assange left Sweden on the 27th. This is what his lawyer said under oath in a British court of law.

Secondly, the Swedish system is different - the accused is arrested and charged late in the process after the investigation is finished. The last step before charges and arrest is an interview where the prosecutor lays out his case to the accused. This interview was not to hear what Assange had to say. It was the last formal step before his arrest - which is why he ran.

As for asylum - diplomatic asylum is not recognized in international law. What is so hard to grasp about that? Notice the lack of international support for Ecuador? It is because diplomatic asylum was rejected by the countries of the world a long time ago for some still valid reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:04 PM

19. About this "lack of international support"...

you may want to read the actual reports on this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/oas-urges-britain-ecuador-resolve-assange-row-210333857.html

Ecuador had accused Britain of threatening to raid its embassy in violation of diplomatic conventions to extract Assange and had sought support from the OAS in objecting to such a possibility.

However, due to objections from the United States, Canada and others, including Panama and Trinidad and Tobago, all of whom said the OAS was not the proper venue to discuss a bilateral dispute, references to the alleged threat were removed from a draft resolution offered by Ecuador and strongly backed by leftist allies Venezuela and Nicaragua.


Just because the US, Canada, Panama and Tridad and Tobago wanted to water down the OAS resolution, doesn't mean that much of the rest of Latin America wasn't outraged, and the OAS went ahead with a resolution anyway. Ecuador had considerable support in the Western Hemisphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:17 PM

20. Latin America is outraged - the rest of the world not so much.

do you think that the fact that Latin America is the only part of the world that recognizes diplomatic asylum has anything to do with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:26 PM

21. The US itself does practice much of the same type of asylum...

when it involves asylum in the US. The only distinction is that we choose not to enforce it as a matter of international law.

The reason leftist Latin America is outraged is because it has been the victim of so much right-wing oppression and violence in the past. You can try to demean Latin America all you want, that doesn't make it less relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:32 PM

22. You just posted the difference between political and diplomatic asylum

one is has been recognized by international law for centuries. The other was explicitly rejected by most of the world - there is ICC case law that explains why the UK and the rest of the world does not have to recognize Ecuador's actions in London.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:40 PM

23. Sorry I misspoke...

there are also cases where the US has granted diplomatic asylum:

"the U.S. has a long record of protecting political targets inside U.S. embassy complexes, most recently with Chinese blind dissident Chen Guangcheng last December.

That might seem like a distinction without a difference to many. However, Chen never sought or was granted asylum; he simply asked to study in the United States and the Chinese government eventually assented.

In 1989, the U.S. granted "temporary refuge" to Feng Lizhi, a leader of the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement, who fled to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and stayed there for 384 days before Chinese authorities allowed him to go to the United States, but officially only for "medical treatment."

Joseph Stalin's daughter Svetlana sought refuge in 1967 via the U.S. Embassy in India and was eventually granted U.S. citizenship."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:44 AM

25. Those are all people escaping political persecution by despotic regimes.

not accused rapists evading prosecution by a country considered to have one of the fairest judicial system in the world.

From the 2011 Rule of Law Index by the World Justice Project:

Sweden ranks first in three of eight areas -fundamental rights, open government, and effective regulatory enforcement and is located in the top five in seven of the eight categories. Sweden’s administrative agencies and courts are rated among the most effective and transparent in the world, and generally observe fundamental rights.


http://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/wjproli2011_0.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:48 PM

27. Again, the point is...

providing diplomatic asylum is not unheard of outside of Latin America.

In this case, Assange is seeking shelter from a nation (the US not Sweden) where elected officials have called for his prosecution, and some made statements that he should receive the death penalty, and where certain Republicans have even stated in the media that he should be assassinated for his crimes. If Assange could be guaranteed that he not be extradited to the US then he, his lawyers, and Ecuadorian officials are all on record as saying that he would have no problem facing justice in Sweden. This is, on the record, not about Assange's treatment by Sweden's judicial system, except insofar as where they may be cooperating with the US. You can argue all you want about what really is motivating Assange and what may be going on in his head. I can only provide you with statements that have been made publically and officially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:59 PM

29. No - Assange is accused of rape in Sweden

The US is his excuse to avoid facing justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #29)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:12 PM

30. Then you are essentially calling the diplomats liars...

and claiming that they are supporting Assange's charade.

I could just as easily claim that Karl Rove has struck a deal with his Swedish contacts to have Assange extradited to the US once he is sent to Sweden. There is just as much evidence supporting this statement as there is supporting yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:16 PM

31. Because we know governments never lie? That every action they take is with the purest intentions?

I have no clue what motivated Ecuador. I suspect they are regretting their decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:23 PM

33. Suspect all you want...

they have made numerous statements that this about keeping Assange safe from mistreatment within the US, not mistreatment within Sweden. I'm sure they were fully aware of the sexual misconduct charges before they granted asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:32 PM

34. So perhaps Correa is using Assange to advance his stature in South America

I think this sums it up well:

U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House's Western Hemisphere subcommittee, has met with Correa several times and believes he understands the gamble.

"He's a very smart guy and this wasn't done in a vacuum," Engel said. "The reason is to kind of be the head of the poke-the-United States-in-the-eye group."

That club includes Bolivia, Nicaragua, Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba — the latter formerly the top Latin American destination for people fleeing U.S. and European prosecution.

"It's not just done because Julian Assange should have freedom or shouldn't be persecuted," Engel said of Correa. "If that were the case, why is he persecuting his own journalists?"


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecuador-leader-seeks-moral-halo-asylum-fight

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:46 PM

37. Maybe you should read the entire article...


it's about Correa attempting to attain the moral high ground on this issue. If this were only about Assange escaping prosecution for sexual misconduct charges, it certainly wouldn't be a path to any moral high ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #37)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:49 PM

38. No - it is about Correa using Assange to further his personal ambitions.

if he was so concerned about transparency perhaps he should stop arresting reporters that criticize him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:00 PM

39. OK so he seized an opportunity to further his personal ambitions...

it's not surprising that a nation's leader might do that.

The essence of my point is that this is about something greater than sexual misconduct charges. From your article:

Marta Lagos, director of the Chile-based Latinobarometro polling firm, said she found it remarkable how Correa seized an opportunity to become standard-bearer of the sovereignty of little nations fed up with the sometimes imperious U.S. meddling in Latin America, as exposed in 2010 when WikiLeaks unleashed a quarter-million cables sent home by Washington's diplomats.

"It made the world bigger," she said. "There have been very few times when an emerging, underdeveloped country like Ecuador has committed an international political act of this potency."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:08 PM

40. So when Assange becomes a liability

and Correa no longer gains any political advantage it will be interesting to see what happens.

Assange needs to pay close attention to what happens to Aliaksandr Barankov.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #40)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:18 PM

43. don't worry

On 23 August, prior to the CNJ's decision, the Ecuadorian Deputy Foreign Minister Marco Albuja stated, "Ecuador will put the emphasis on not extraditing a citizen whose life is at risk, from facing the death penalty or life in prison". Extradition would have required approval by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, who stated that if the CNJ allowed the extradition, then he could refuse the extradition "as a last resort." He stated, "We reject any attack on human rights (or) political persecution".

On 29 August 2012, the CNJ stated that Barankov's refugee status was justified and rejected the Belarusian extradition request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Barankov

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:46 PM

50. Correa was the one who threw Barankov back in jail

just before the president of Belarus arrived to sign some trade deals. The judges are the heroes here, not Correa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:11 PM

56. Presidents through people in jail?

Maybe that's how it goes in the movies you like to watch.

Extradition would have required approval by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, who stated that if the CNJ allowed the extradition, then he could refuse the extradition "as a last resort." He stated, "We reject any attack on human rights (or) political persecution".

On 29 August 2012, the CNJ stated that Barankov's refugee status was justified and rejected the Belarusian extradition request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Barankov

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #40)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:28 PM

44. Barankov was previously arrested in Ecuador...

for overstaying his Visa. He's also a former police official being accused of fraud charges, not a journalist/hacker facing sexual misconduct charges. There may be some parallels with Assange, but why should he be treated equally when his situation is clearly so different? Maybe Ecuador itself has a lot to fear from the Belarusian KGB. Who can say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #44)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:44 PM

47. Barankov was granted political asylum in 2010 and the visa charge was dropped

he was thrown in jail by Correa this past June just before the president of Belarus visited Ecuador to sign trade deals.

The point is that Correa is a political opportunist who was willing to throw Barankov to the wolves for a better deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #47)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:15 PM

57. Then there you go...

trade deals probably have as much effect on diplomatic decisions as anything else, and they may well have an effect on Assange's outcome. My singular point is that Correa has scored points on providing Assange with asylum because of Wikileaks, not just because it allows Assange to escape sexual misconduct charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #44)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:44 PM

48. So you want this guy extradited?

Seems to me it was pointed out with feverish outrage previously that Ecuador is in collusion with another DICTATOR in another BAD country, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #48)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:54 PM

52. It doesn't matter what I want...

and this thread is not about Barankov's situation. The point is that Ecuador may be under completely different kinds of pressure with respect to Barankov, and these are all factors that would have to be considered. Belarus is not the US and its more like comparing apples to oranges. I wouldn't expect Ecuador to have an open door policy for anyone who happens to be seeking asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:08 PM

55. Sorry, I didn't see you username

and thought this other person had suddenly changed his mind.

I apologize, my fault (although I wouldn't put it beyond this other person to do what I thought he did, given what I have seen of his debating tactics).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:45 PM

26. How did you become an expert in Swedish judicial procedures?

I've seen you and others here repeatedly claim that, in Sweden "the accused is arrested and charged late in the process after the investigation is finished". Assange was arrested "in absence" within less than three hours after the two women arrived in the police station to report him. Had the investigation resulted in "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" of committing an offense, he would most likely have been held in pretrial detention, given that he did not reside within Sweden. Pre-trial detention can last for many months and even years. OTOH, if there is no reason for arrest during the preliminary investigation, then there is no reason to hold an accused in prison after charges are being brought and during the trial.

The fact that Assange was not arrested again after the preliminary investigation was reinstituted means that the suspicion was not strong enough, they had not found "probable cause" or they would have imposed at least travel restrictions instead of telling him on September 15 he was free to leave the country.

Likewise, you and others have repeatedly claimed that a final interview must take place before charges are being brought. While prosecutors may actually hold to this convention as a golden rule, as I have seen described it, there is no such condition, certainly not for arrest, but also not for filing for a summons with the court (which initiates prosecution) to be found in the Code of Judicial Procedure.

The prosecution is bound by law to consider any evidence which might exonerate an accused and also to at all times advise him of the state of their investigation. So, it seems reasonable to question him on everything they have learned during the investigation and what they suspect. But this is not necessarily the final step before they bring charges. I remember at least one interview was held with a witness long after the planned interview date on 28 September, the forensic results were also not in. But yes, the interview was definitely "to hear what Assange had to say". Even Ms Ny made this explicitly clear when she informed the UK court that she was planning to bring charges unless Assange's statements could change her position, which is why she needed to interview him.

There is no maximum period of pre-trial detention in Sweden. However, if no legal action has been taken within 14 days, a new remand hearing is required. In 2010 there were approximately 1,700 pre-trial detainees in Sweden, who made up 24% of the total prison population.

Pre-trial detention may only be imposed on a person who is reasonably suspected on probable cause of committing an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or more. Furthermore there must be a reasonable risk that the person will:
- flee or otherwise evade legal proceedings
or punishment;
- impede the investigation by, for example, destroying evidence; or
- commit further offences.
Any person may also be detained on probable cause, regardless of the nature of the offence, if: their identity is unknown and they refuse to provide it; or, they do not reside within Sweden and there is a reasonable risk that they will avoid legal proceedings or a penalty by fleeing the country.

http://www.fairtrials.net/campaigns/pre_trial_detention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #26)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:58 PM

28. From the British High Court ruling

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 arrest was upheld 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."


The prosecutor is saying that unless Assange has evidence that completely undermines her case, Assange will be arrested and indicted once the interview is completed. That is why he skipped town the day before his interview - he knew he was going to be arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #28)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:15 PM

42. read my post again

Nowhere does the prosecutor say that "Assange will be arrested .... once the interview is completed". She says that he will be "indicted" unless "any matters said by him ... undermine (her) present view that he should be indicted". Exactly what I said.

Your interpretation, that the interview is a "formal" necessity, as the "final" step so they can indict and arrest him immediately thereafter, is nowhere supported in this statement by the prosecutor. She needs to make sure she has all the evidence, including Assange's testimony. That is the legal requirement, not that it's a "final step". And that is also why she could conduct the interview elsewhere.

It would certainly be more convenient for her to have Assange in Sweden, and she has the right to arrest him "in absence" - that is what the UK court found. Given that his asylum protects him now against this arrest, she should consider alternatives, in case she really wants to bring this case to an end.

As to your repeated assertions that Assange "skipped" - I don't have an opinion on that either way and don't think it is significant. But didn't you earlier point out that Assange's lawyer testified under oath as to contacts with the prosecutor over an interview date proposed for 28 September? This same lawyer also testified that he didn't reach Assange to communicate this proposal. Are you saying he is lying under oath?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:36 PM

46. Now read the prosecutors statement again.

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.


Sure looks like the prosecutor thinks she has all she needs to indict.


He is not protected from arrest - not unless he intends to spend the rest of his life in the embassy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #46)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:59 PM

53. Yes, let's go back to where you started

keeping in mind certain goal posts you don't want to see moved.

"The last step before charges and arrest is an interview where the prosecutor lays out his case to the accused."

False.
1. Arrest has nothing to do with the interview.
2. Charges can and will be brought if the prosecutor thinks he has a case. There is no "last step".
3. The interview must take place because the prosecutor has the duty to inform the accused of the allegations (every step of the way, BTW, which she didn't do in this case).

"This interview was not to hear what Assange had to say."

False. The interview must take place in order to hear what Assange has to say. The prosecutor has the duty to gather all evidence, including what might exonerate the accused.

"It was the last formal step before his arrest"

We already mentioned it: the interview has nothing to do with a possible detention order.

"which is why he ran."

You can say that until you are blue in the face, but even if Assange did not particularly look forward to that interview, there were certainly more, and much more important reasons for him to go to London at that point. We all know that he had major releases to prepare amidst all kinds of attacks against his organisation. And he had been informed that he could leave the country, meaning the prosecutor did not think they had a strong case. Which they didn't, of course, as we all know from the evidence that is available to everyone, or lack thereof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:17 PM

58. She says that Assange will be indicted immediately after the interview

it is black and white.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:19 PM

60. You obviously crave to see it but the prosecutor doesn't say any such thing

I can see some grey there, perhaps because you used the "excerpt" tag? Or maybe because the words "immediately", "after the interview" don't seem to be part of your quote?

Of course, the purpose of an interview with a person accused of a crime is not "merely to assist" in the investigation, the investigation will obviously lead to further criminal proceedings if it is thought the evidence merits a trial. Before that happens, though, the prosecutor must come to this conclusion - which Ms Ny says she cannot do before she has interviewed Assange in order to find out whether he can cast doubt on what she now thinks she can prove. Thereafter, the court has to decide whether or not to proceed with a trial. And none of that is conditioned upon the accused to be held in detention, as you have previously claimed.

You apparently think that these steps are meaningless. Which says a lot about your appreciation of the Swedish judicial system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #60)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:39 PM

61. What the hell do you think this means?

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.


She says that unless Assange can completely refute her case, he will be indicted. She is saying she is convinced that she has enough evidence to indict Assange.

Considering Assange's first instinct was to run, I doubt he has anything to exonerate himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #61)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:06 PM

62. It means

that anything he says might trigger further investigations (explicitly mentioned by her, BTW, as one of the reasons why she wants him to be present in Sweden so they can interview him again), cast doubt on assumptions, perhaps his magneticism works on her, too, and she falls in love. Point being, neither you nor I know what will follow from this interview, its purpose being that he is questioned, not just informed that he is under suspicion.

Of course, he completely refutes anything that is alleged. The question is who you believe. I, for one, would not put my money on either of the complainants. One of them is obviously deceitful, both of them act a little too childish for their age. I don't buy either of those stories. But then, again, I have no axe to grind with Assange or Wikileaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #62)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:05 PM

63. In any respect it is all irrelevent.

he has a valid arrest warrant in his name and he has been ordered extradited to Sweden by a British court. He has no other legal options unless you really think he is going to spend the rest of his life in that embassy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #63)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:18 PM

65. Like a head of state or a governor

he will also have a personal sentry in front of the house, keeping him safe.

Until the UK offers safe passage. They look stupid already, what with the threats to kick the Ecuadorians out of their Embassy. Maybe someone sees reason there some day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink