The Assange Affair, April 2013 – a public lecture by Justice Stefan Lindskog of the Supreme Court of Sweden, is streaming on the University of Adelaide website. Viewers are advised that the term “Affair” has largely been interpreted in the sexual sense.

The sponsors decided not to live-stream the other panel members, Julian Burnside QC, Jack Waterford of the Canberra Times and Professor George Williams AO, all of whom brought a significant contribution to this debate. Of equal interest is the Q & A with the audience, wherein Justice Lindskog was faced with some challenging questions.

He conceded that the robust Swedish judicial system he just promoted was powerless; not even consulted… when two Egyptian nationals, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, were illegally rendered to Egypt and tortured. Sweden’s Ambassador to Australia Mr. Sven-Olof Petersson admits that he however, had advance knowledge of the CIA rendition flight from Stockholm on December 18, 2001.

Lindskog also states during question time,:

“I would like to comment upon the possibility of the prosecutor to go to London. It is possible that the prosecutor could travel to London and interrogate him there. I have no answer to the question why that hasn’t happened.”

Doesn’t this undermine one of the central claims of the Swedish government and remove the need for extradition? And wouldn’t it also make the UK wonder why they had wasted 3 million pounds on keeping an eye on Julian? Britain might now consider sending the bill to the Swedish prosecutor’s office, since without their unjustified refusal to do what is legal and normal in such situations, the British could surely put their money to better use.

Marcello Ferrada de Noli (Professor’s Blogg) has just published a comprehensive analysis of Justice Lindskog’s speech, in English, on the Swedish newspaper Newsmill.

Audio only is available at this stage for the other speakers, but will be replaced by video in the near future.

I was sent an audio recording of Julian Burnside’s speech last night at the University of Adelaide. It was pretty low volume but I’ve manage to make most of it clear and audible. It is regrettable that more professionally generated documentation of the other voices in the debate with Justice Stefan Lindskog of the Supreme Court of Sweden has not be made available. How is it a debate at all, one might ask, when the organisers live stream ONLY one side of it?

I rather thought Lindskog might be here to play the “the good guy”, so that Sweden would be seen to be cleaning up its act. With the tainted Marianne Ny out of the picture and Borgstrom half-sacked (he’s still defending SW), how could we doubt that it is safe for Ecuador to deliver Julian Assange? Let us not forget however, that in the case of the US vs Bradley Manning, the prosecution has decided to pursue the greater charges; that the existence of the Grand Jury investigation into Wikileaks and Assange has now been made public, and thus, that Australians have been ‘fore-warned”…

One must also remember that in the last year, the Gillard government has passed legislation declaring offences associated with ‘terrorism’ to be “not political” (and therefore extraditable), while the US labels Assange a “high-tech terrorist” – and more recently, an “ENEMY OF THE STATE” . Which state the allies are talking about might be an interesting question… But let us be clear.

What the lovely Lindskog is saying is that he believes, in his heart of hearts, that a part of what Manning and Assange did was for the common good, and that in the long term, this will be recognised. He is also saying however, that it was perfectly normal for the British Courts to myopically disregard the merits of the Swedish case, since it is possible for arguments to be based purely on points of law. He cites the condom lies as “amusing”; not criminal, as they clearly are. And he asks us not to forgive Manning, but pray that his punishment be ” balanced”. The scales of justice seem to have ethical weight; but not in the here and now!

No wonder Juiian Assange, Jennifer Robinson and Greg Barns raised objections to this man’s presence in Australia, on an apparent mission of good will. I thought of Pinochet when he mentioned that governments may block extradition due to ill health…” Thank you Julian Burnside for making the situation clear. Why even The Australian couldn’t discern the purpose of Justice Stefan Lindskog’s gossip and waffle…

Even The Australian couldn't discern the purpose of Lindskog's gossip and waffle.

Breaking Australia’s silence: WikiLeaks and freedom from John Pilger on Vimeo.