According to the @UN note on principle of non-refoulement, "The absence of formal recognition as a refugee does not preclude that the person concerned possesses refugee status and is therefore protected by the principle of non-refoulement." FreeAssange
Therefore, it does not matter whether or not the UK recognizes Assange as a refugee as Ecuador did for approx. 6 yrs. ASSANGE IS A REFUGEE who requires safe passage to a safe country where his life, liberty, right to due process and no torture are respected.
The absence of formal recognition as a refugee does not preclude that the person concerned possesses refugee status and is therefore protected by the principle of non-refoulement.
It should also be noted that many of these countries are parties to international instruments that could be invoked in certain circumstances against the return of some non-Convention refugees to a place where their lives, freedom (cont,)
or other fundamental rights would be in jeopardy, notably the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or the European Human Rights Convention.
NOTE: UK authorities have actively participated in dehumanising + torturing Assange
NOTE: UK authorities have actively participated in dehumanising + torturing Assange
UK has denied the inherent REFUGEE status of Julian Assange according to @UN rulings (3 now, plus torture assessment), see supra for UNHCR reference thereby...
feel entitled to continue Assange's Deprivation of liberty Ongoing psychological tortureDenial of access to resources to defend himself (legal documnts, library, laptop, time w lawyers/visitors)
Denial of human rights
Denial of due process (perversion of justice)
*with IMPUNITY*
Denial of human rights
Denial of due process (perversion of justice)
*with IMPUNITY*
The longer Assange is held in UK custody, the worse the abuse of power (perverted Justice up to the UK Supreme Court, ongoing torture, deprivation of liberty, access to legal defense) gets.
Why? Because UK authorities suffer from Superiority complex, put themselves above @UN
Why? Because UK authorities suffer from Superiority complex, put themselves above @UN
...above International Law, exclude themselves from the obligation to NOT do the very things it is doing to Assange, place themselves "above the law" but accuse Assange of doing so, exclude him from benefitting from revised UK laws re: EAW
The UK is profoundly in breach of Human Rights law, international law, common decency, rule of law, due process, @UN rulings and is saturated with CONTEMPT for Assange who it deems as sub-human, non-caste, expendable and a bargaining chip in US transactions.
The UK is leading the charge in debasing the dignity of the @UN and the work it has accomplished since WWII.
Its approach to Assange is contemptuous, non-humanitarian, transactional, cruel, calculated and sociopathic.
Its approach to Assange is contemptuous, non-humanitarian, transactional, cruel, calculated and sociopathic.
What can people do to challenge this flagrant abuse of power? The @UN has spoken formally on 4 occasions in favour of releasing Assange from UK soil, IMMEDIATELY, but the UK's hubris (superiority) has muted all directives and reports then slandered the @UN for intervening.
If the UK can render the @UN "flacid" in its ability to advance Human Rights, Due Process, Rule of Law, Prohibition against Torture etc.
WE ARE ALL FUCKED.
WE ARE ALL FUCKED.
The longer the UK gets away with this ongoing abuse, the more emboldened it becomes to do worse, get paid directly/indirectly by the US, insults the @UN and makes the world LESS SAFE for every single person on the planet. If we don't have the @UN, we revert back to pre-WWII.
The only apt parallel I can consider is:
A sociopath, or rapist, or sadist does not integrate feedback or legal challenges into his/her psyche when caught out doing horrific things. The rapist defends his rape. The murderer defends his/her killing. The torturer defends torture.
A sociopath, or rapist, or sadist does not integrate feedback or legal challenges into his/her psyche when caught out doing horrific things. The rapist defends his rape. The murderer defends his/her killing. The torturer defends torture.
The more the torturer is challenged about the torture, the more hyperbole is broadcast about why the cruelty is justified, the rape, mutilation, isolation, theft... THAT IS WHAT THE UK HAS BEEN DOING FOR 9 YRS.
Ecuador protected Assange not only from the US injustice which threaten(s/ed) him, but also UK injustice which is plain, obvious and ongoing.
But that changed on April 11, 2019, The Day of Betrayal (see UNHCR note below)
But that changed on April 11, 2019, The Day of Betrayal (see UNHCR note below)
Whenever refugees/asylum-seekers are subjected, either directly or indirectly, to such measures of return, be it in the form of rejection, expulsion or otherwise, to territories where their life or freedom are threatened, the principle of non-refoulement has been violated.
Furthermore having regard to the nature + purpose of the principle it also applies to extradition. Indeed, the protection of a refugee cannot be regarded as complete unless he or she is also protected against extradition to a country where he or she has reason to fear persecution
Insofar as their actual wording is concerned, statements of the principle of non-refoulement figuring in various international instruments are wide enough to cover extradition.This applies in particular as regards the wording of Article 33 (1) of the 1951 Convention.
Most extradition conventions also foresee a safeguard against extradition to countries of persecution.
FreeAssange
FreeAssange
It's imperative to note that Australia has a track record of flouting the UNHCR principles of non-refoulement w respect to people fleeing horrific conditions and seeking asylum in Australia. Its utter disregard and non-intervention in Assange case is in keeping with this abuse.
The @UN outlines exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement -- ie. situations where a country can return an asylee away, expel them etc. but Assange does not / did not fit the criteria. That is, he is not/was not a threat to the national security of Ecuador, the UK, the US
The punishment of being in Belmarsh does not fit the offence (not even a crime): breaching bail conditions in order to obtain refugee status DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GRAVE CRIMINAL ACT, but he is being treated as such. It is disproportionate.
Australia's silence on this is astounding. The silence indicates complicity and agreement with the absolute disproportionately harsh sentencing of Assange to a maximum security prison for a minor infraction.
Australia is complicit in Assange's ongoing torture. It's that simple.
Australia is OK with the UK treating Assange on the same level as a murderer, terrorist or threat to society -- someone who has committed a grave criminal act, who endangers society.
Australia is OK with the UK treating Assange on the same level as a murderer, terrorist or threat to society -- someone who has committed a grave criminal act, who endangers society.
Assange's intellectualism, journalism, writing, speaking and teaching DOES NOT ENDANGER SOCIETY, IT PROTECTS SOCIETY FROM SOCIOPATHS.
To conflate a bail infraction to the level of a "grave criminal act" is to imprison a person that protects society, not endangers it. FreeAssange
To conflate a bail infraction to the level of a "grave criminal act" is to imprison a person that protects society, not endangers it. FreeAssange
Aside: I have not been able to access my blog so I am doing a thread instead. Sorry.
Australia is giving * POWER TO THE PERPETRATORS* of those who torture one of their own citizens. Would it cheer if Egypt, Syria, Pakistan or Libya were torturing Assange? Likely yes.
Australia's silence is complicity.
Australia's silence is complicity.
Australia gives "power to the perpetrators" in its financing and cooperation in West Papua + in its abuse/torture of detainees in off-shore camps.
It is outside of International Law, undermines the spirit force of Human Rights Law. It's hypocritical coming from a Western nation.
It is outside of International Law, undermines the spirit force of Human Rights Law. It's hypocritical coming from a Western nation.
It is becoming more and more clear that Western nations and signatories of @UN / International conventions can be divided into two categories:
Those that give Power to the Perpetrators or
Those that give Power to the People.
Australia gives power to the perpetrators of torture
Those that give Power to the Perpetrators or
Those that give Power to the People.
Australia gives power to the perpetrators of torture
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
