The Day Human Rights Died ... in Plain Sight

I'd hoped never to find myself writing this - and there's lots more to the back story that doesn't need to be revisited - but the injustice meted out to Julian Assange on 10 December 2021 is so clearly politically motivated that we need to amplify the considerable noise we're already making in calling for his release. If we don't, a dangerous precedent will have been set to silence anyone who seeks to hold our governments to account.

Yesterday, the UK's High Court upheld the US's appeal to extradite Assange, effectively surrendering him to the very country whose misdeeds he exposed - the latest ruling in a series of travesties that suggest our legal system has bowed to the relentless pressure the US applied right from the off to get its man.  Had it been anyone else, would the government have spent millions surrounding the Ecuadorian embassy solely on the strength of dubious Swedish allegations?  The overkill had all the marks of bigger fish to fry.

We only need look at the players in Assange's legal journey to start asking questions about dirty deals, complicity, nepotism and compromise:

Keir STARMER - a human rights lawyer no less, and a colleague in the same chambers as Assange's defence team, was head of the Crown Prosecution Service at the time they implored Sweden not to get "cold feet" in pursuing Assange. Now Labour leader, politics was seemingly already at play - was he protecting Tony Blair, who dragged us into the very conflicts that led to Wikileaks publishing the 'Collateral Murder' video?

Chief Magistrate Lady Emma Louise ARBUTHNOT - initially presided over the extradition proceedings until a conflict of interest arose due to her husband's association with British military and intelligence services and further compromised by her son being employed by an anti-data leak company.

District Judge Vanessa BARAITSER - appointed as Arbuthnot's subordinate, and still overseen by her, she rose from obscurity and was soon considered to be taking her orders from above, given her barely disguised bias and hostility towards Assange, often appearing to be reading from pre-prepared statements. The proceedings under her tenure were fraught with obstacles, both physical and communicative, being placed in the way of those seeking to report on developments. More than once she seemed to be in the prosecution's pockets. In the event, she was dismissive of the actual legal basis of the US's indictments, focusing instead on Assange's mental health, thus opening the way for the US to get around this final hurdle by offering assurances about the conditions under which he would be held. It's worth noting that, despite acknowledging the detrimental effect of incarceration on Assange's mental state, she denied his release and sent him straight back to Belmarsh - the UK's supermax facility.

Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett - one of the two High Court appeal judges who yesterday overturned the January decision not to extradite Assange, he has for 40 years been a friend of Sir Alan Duncan who, in 2018 while Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, described Assange as a "miserable little worm" and didn't hide his glee when Assange was eventually expelled, some say illegally, from the Ecuadorian embassy. Intriguingly, in August this year he and Robert Buckland QC advised the Queen in appointing Vanessa Baraitser as a Circuit Judge - reward for a 'job well done'?

Of course, these are only a few factors in Assange's persecution. The US has been involved in all sorts of deals behind the scenes, including granting Ecuador an IMF loan in exchange for withdrawing his asylum, but this is about the transparent abuse of power over a legal system that used to set the standard for the rest of the world.

Yesterday's ruling was an affront on human rights, demonstrating that the US is trying to dampen scrutiny way beyond its domestic reach.

And all this on International Human Rights Day, upheld by Amnesty International and only days after US Secretary Antony Blinken announced, "Media freedom plays an indispensable role in informing the public, holding governments accountable, and telling stories that otherwise would not be told. The U.S. will continue to stand up for the brave and necessary work of journalists around the world."

There are other players in this saga too, both political and institutional - here's my extended Hall of Shame:

A Look at Conflict: How Long can you Hold a Grudge?

History at school bored me - I'd rather have been told loads of interesting stories than to have to keep going over a select few on the curriculum, with the emphasis on our ability to commit dates and people to memory.  There were reference books for that if you needed them, although I appreciate you need a broad grasp of chronology to know where to look.  It was only later in life, after coming to Europe and seeing firsthand the wonderful landmarks I'd only ever heard about, that I realised there was something of historical importance on virtually every corner and my natural inquisitiveness took over - someone famous may once have passed there or over here is the site of a significant building or event.

I understand that our diverse cities and cultures wouldn't exist were it not for the blood, sweat and tears of previous generations - and it's important to historically preserve both our physical achievements and the memory of those who accomplished or protected them - but when it comes to continually reminding ourselves of the religious or political motivation behind CONFLICT, shadows remain cast over many generations and tracing back grudges becomes increasingly convoluted and unreliable.  You only have to look at the scholarly accounts of the Napoleonic wars to realise how events can be interpreted so differently in a relatively short period of time.

In my simplistic view, this becomes an obstacle to current (and hence future) world inhabitants being able to strive towards harmony - wherever they were born or whatever their domicile today.   It would be great just to be able to say "Let's just have a 'Day Zero', a point of mutual forgiveness, whereafter you should try to live peaceably with your neighbours from wherever you are right now".  But that wouldn't be fair to the living ancestors of those born in exile, longing to be reunited with their loved ones ... unless there was the further will to remove the very territorial borders that caused the squabbles in the first place.  We should all be free to tread broadly anywhere on this shared globe.

Or is it actually worth it, for the sake of future generations, for this one generation of misplaced tribes to just suck it up and endure the heartache of separation from kin or homeland to allow its offspring a real shot at a new beginning? - to start their lives without being indoctrinated into hating the enemies of their forefathers and rather to be taught to truly love their new neighbours?

A kid is a kid to a kid.  Is it right that past disagreements should continue to blight new lives to the extent that some have never known an existence without conflict?  It's worth noting that, by the end of the '100 Years War', the original protagonists were long dead. What would the world degenerate into if no-one knew better than kill or be killed? We may as well have never strayed from the caves.

If an aggressor seeks to breach the peace, they should face immediate prosecution for the very first crime committed in their name - why should anyone be above the laws to which the rest of us are expected to conform (including those for inciting violence)?  There shouldn't be degrees of looting and harm to another individual, depending on whether you're 'A. Citizen' or the leader of a country.

One thing I know for sure - we shouldn't dwell on past grievances, except to learn valuable lessons about how we can create a better, peaceful future.  People quip "Never forget where you buried the hatchet".  I disagree - I say "Melt it down - make a monument of it if you like - but burn the handle".

“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” (Mandela)

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" (Gandhi)