Julian Burnside vs Justice Stefan Lindskog

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.

About CaTⓋ

Artist, musician, nerd
This entry was posted in EDITORIAL, LIVING PROOF, NEWS and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Julian Burnside vs Justice Stefan Lindskog

  1. Val says:

    Other reasons for declaring offences associated with ‘terrorism’ to be “not political”, aside from being able to extradite Mr Assange, it would prevent Assange from seeking asylum in a foreign embassy in Australia, and also deprive him of the US defence of non-justiciability on the ground of the political question doctrine, under the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act 2012.

    We have heard from Mr Assange that mass surveillance, while it is used for war, could just as easily be used for cyber-peace and that fundamental to this are the values of freedom of movement, freedom of communication, and freedom of economic interaction, all of which he has been deprived of through deception and unrelenting persecution by his opponents.

    Its no coincidence that the visit from Judge Lindskog comes after the launch of the Wikileaks Party, looks to me like the timing was to advise the Gillard Government on Assange and extradition proceedings should he return to Australia as a senator. Steps need to be in place to safeguard Mr Assange’s freedom and ensure the Government doesn’t deliver him to Swedish authorities, under an extradition agreement. By virtue of the Commonwealth extra-territorial power if an Australian citizen commits an illegal act in a foreign place, they are deemed to have committed an offence under Australian law.

    Mr Assange exposed deceit and this enraged opponents in the US and that influence has extended to the Australian PM Gillard, Foreign Minister Carr, and the Human Rights Commissioner, Gillian Triggs, all of whom have been missing in action on support for Mr Assange. Instead they look to be extra pawns in a western game to out manoeuvre a stalemate. Driven, apparently, by Mr Assange’s ability to make a great contribution to Australian politics, with policies of transparency and accountability, which has proven to be rhetoric on the Australian political landscape. The Wikileaks Party has expressed support and seek the right to self determination for the Torres Strait Islander Peoples and the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia. Yet some in the Australian Government are among the masters of deceit just ask any Indigenous Australian.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>