The debate came to a bit of a head yesterday when the Australian Broadcasting Network—the nation’s publicly-funded broadcaster—published an open letter to Prime Minister Gillard on its website signed by more than 200 notable citizens, including famed academic Noam Chomsky and author Helen Garner. Citing the violent rhetoric of U.S. commentators like Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol, who have called for Assange’s assassination, and others who have compared him and his organization to terrorists, the letter reads:
As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.
We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.
We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange’s passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.
A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial - it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.
We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.
Assange Chimes In
Assange himself weighed in on the debate yesterday, presumably penning the op-ed that ran in Rupert Murdoch’s Australian just hours or days before turning himself in to British police. He is fiercely critical of Gillard in the piece, seizing on the wave of support among Australian intellectuals. Assange writes:
And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Julia Gillard and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport, or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. The Australian Attorney-General is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US.
Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.
We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn’t want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.
Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.
I do not know and did not study Swedish law, having been qualified in England and in the Caribbean, but let's use reasonable sense:-
The Swedish law reads: " He who lays hands on or by means of shooting from a firearm, throwing of stones, noise or in any other way harasses another person will be sentenced for harassment to fines or imprisonment for up to one year."
Q. Mr. Assange - you are accused of harassment – what do you have to say in response to the charge?
A. I had no weapon and did not harass anyone.
Q. I put it to you that you are being less than frank with this honourable court.
A. I reject your suggestion Sir.
Q. You did have a dangerous weapon in use at the material time Mr. Assange.
A. No Sir!
Q. But there is no dispute that you had sex with these two women – how could you in all honesty deny that there was an attack. Mr. Assange I urge you at this point to take responsibility for the misuse of your harassing rod – what do you say to that?
A. It was not a harassing one Sir – it was very friendly and fully accommodated one by both ladies Sir – and that is the truth! Actually, by reference to the law – I laid a hand on it, they both did too – I worked them both over without any harassment – and all in all relative to the charge – I did shoot my “firearm” at the end in the most pleasurable way Sir. BUT, IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES - NOT GUILTY AS CHARGED!
THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE TOLD TO GO FUCK ITSELF ON THIS ONE!
CB www.globaljusticeonline.com
P.S. Did the people elect the officials - or – are we all blindly subservient to them wot hold the power? You decide for yourself. You decide -many lie, steal trillions, fabricate reasons to start wars – and you think that the Wikileaks information is dangerous and that it is not your right to know? Consider yourself a freethinker? – maybe not.
#1 Posted by Courtenay Barnett, CJR on Wed 8 Dec 2010 at 08:48 PM
I'd like to hear a remotely convincing argument as to why Wikileaks is NOT media. How can it not be? It's breaking news to the public, which appears in newspapers and on the Web. If Assange and Co were stealing secrets and passing them to another government, there might be a case for those who want to paint them as something other than media. But they're not doing that - they're doing the job of media. Only better.
So what about them is not media? The fact that they don't charge?
#2 Posted by OD, CJR on Fri 10 Dec 2010 at 07:03 PM