Billy Bragg; the Great British Con

Whilst I am no fan of Facebook's ever-changing mood, to misquote an angsty, young Paul Weller, I was pleasantly surprised by their recent promotion of it's erstwhile popular 'Notes' feature; in the past it had acted as a useful cross between a mini-blog and a personal notebook, but fell out of favour with the social network's head office apparatchiks. However, with the latest overhaul of Facebook profiles it has apparently fallen back into favour; like an Old Bolshevik returned from the Siberian mines to be awarded a Stakhanovite medal for labour valor.

On Monday of this week this change drew my attention to one particular note; an Open Letter to Billy Bragg, that I had penned way back in May 2010. I was pleased to note not only what a considered and well-thought out piece it was, even if I do say so myself, but how well it held up after two years and that it was perhaps even more politically relevant now than it was then. 

The following day I was somewhat bemused to clock a Tweet from Radio 6's Radcliffe & Maconie announcing that the one-and-the-same Billy Bragg would be joining them in the studio that day after his appearance on ITV's Loose Women. This tickled me, especially so soon after reading my previous misif to Comrade Billy, so I fired of an abrupt Tweet mocking Bragg's appearance on such a dire and moribund daytime TV show. I was somewhat surprised to get a quick reply from Bragg:

Now, whilst Billy is correct to assert his appearance on this televisual equivalent of the Daily Mail was little indication or anything more than a rather embarrassing need for self-promotion to the audience of a turgid, reactionary production, viewed in relation to previous utterances from Barking's answer to Voltaire [sic], it does not paint a too positive picture.

So I think it is fair to republish a timely reminder of who Billy Bragg was, and what he has become...

Friday 14 May 2010 AT 16:53 GMT

AN OPEN LETTER TO BILLY BRAGG

Dear Billy,

You ask why I accuse you of being a sell-out. I thought it would be perhaps beneficially to write an open reply so the points of debate, and my disappointment with you, are in the public realm.

Firstly, may I say how much I admired you as a teenager growing up in a small, reactionary town on the South Coast in the 1980's. Whilst Thatcher was battering the working class at every turn you held out a ray of hope for an alternative, introducing countless young working class people to politics (as well as unrequited love!).

You proudly held the torch for the English folk tradition, the expression of agrarian and working class dissent and struggle, and exposed people to a history they may not have discovered, with songs like your passionate rendition of Leon Rosselson's World Turned Upside Down about the 17th Century Diggers/True Levellers [see footnote].

How slightly surreal to find a facile, teenage programme like Top of the Pops featururing your performance of Between The Wars, a song in that English folk tradition, and singing of the experience and hopes of miners, dockers and railway men. Perhaps it is time for a gentle reminder of the lyrics to that very song:

Cover of the Socialist Anthem penned by Bragg

I kept the faith and I kept voting
Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand
For theirs is a land with a wall around it
And mine is a faith in my fellow man


Build me a path from cradle to grave
And I'll give my consent
To any government
That does not deny a man a living wage.

It was perhaps with a sense of shock and disbelief to then watch you on BBC1s Week In Politics openly and publicly not just accepting but actually supporting a Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition government, which intends to do exactly that; deny a man a living wage. The vicious cuts in wages, welfare and front-line services and VAT tax rises, aimed to hit the poor hardest, that spearheads the public agenda of this new "coalition" regime is no secret. Cameron and Clegg are quite shameless about it, as, it would appear are you.

Whilst you continue to endorse the red herring, cooked-up by Nick Clegg and his second-eleven of Toryism, and served by the petty bourgeois journalists at The Guardian, the journo's themselves are desperately trying to backtrack. Like you they backed Nick Clegg, confident that “the liberal moment has come” and that its readers would loyally follow its advice.

But it hasn’t. And they didn’t. Like your former fans, Guardian readers did what they usually do: they ignored The Guardian's bleatings and voted Labour. Because, although comment is free, facts are sacred, and one of the facts to emerge from the last week of the election was that Nick Clegg was no defender of social justice or champion of the working class.

Billy Bragg enjoys a cup of tea with the Labour leader who failed to lead Labour and betrayed the Miners

But how could someone who prides themselves on both their social conscience and depth of historical knowledge have managed to not only get it so spectacularly wrong, but also continue unperturbed down the road of the now discredited "progressive" Lib Dems? Although perhaps we should not be that surprised when we recall your infamous jolly, sipping cups of tea and chortling at Neil Kinnock's jokes shortly after he betrayed the miners, the vanguard of the organised workers in their battle against Thatcher in 1984-85, allowing her free reign to dispose of workers rights and destroy working class communities nationwide.

The Liberal Democrats presented themselves as something “new”, “clean” and "progressive", but at the first whiff of power jumped both feet first into bed with the party of privilige, wealth and bigotry. We no longer need to take a closer look to reveal a very old party, the Whigs, that has always carried out the policies dictated by the capitalist class of Britain, because it is spalshed all over the front pages of the press!!!

Republican Billy Bragg "excited" about meeting and performing for the Monarch

The Liberal Democrats have always been a party of the rich. They still are. They claim to be new and different from the two main parties. In fact they have done centuries of abject service in Parliament for the rich. Now they still stand ready at the disposal of the ruling class, like the Tories, to load the burden of the crisis on to the shoulders of the working class.

The Lib Dems went into this general election campaign calling itself "new" and "modern" and "progressive" without any shadow or irony despite it's entire Front Bench team consisting of white, middle class men. Considering Shirley Williams is an elder stateswoman of UK politics why wasn't she sat on their front bench?! So the "progressive" Lib Dems did not have ONE single woman or ethnic minority on their front bench!!! The new ConDem cabinet contains only four women, none of whome are Lib Dems, and just one solitary member of an ethnic minority who isn't even elected but a Tory peer!

But should we really be surprised that the party of "proportional representation" has magnifiently failed to be representative of modern Britain? Clegg himself admitted last autumn that his party is "woefully unrepresentative of modern Britain". At a time when both Labour and the Conservatives increased the number of female candidates they are fielding, the Lib Dems are the only party to field fewer women this time round – 22% of their candidates, compared with 23% in 2005. They haven't acknowledged this huge democratic deficit – their radicalism doesn't extend to challenging the status quo.

Let's look at the Lib Dems actual voting record over the last Parliament - virtually consistent in their support for the Tories, lookie here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/20/general-election-2010-liberal-democrats

And the fresh-faces "modern" and "progressive" Nick Clegg has openly admitted his admiration for Maggie Thatcher and her economic policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7415708/Nick-Clegg-how-Margaret-Thatcher-inspires-me.html

Far from challenging the old establishment elitism, Nick Clegg is personally from a privileged background. He went to one of the most expensive and elite public schools in the country, Westminster. British papers have published pictures of the family chateau in south-west France. Early in his political career he was taken under the wing of Tory grandees like Lord Carrington and Leon Brittan. Only the lurch of the Conservative Party into euroscepticism deflected him from following the natural course of his career into the Tory party. For him, as for the ruling class, the Lib Dems were the next best thing.

Clegg denounces trade union backing and financial support for Labour. What is his alternative? His party, like the Tories, is financed by big business backers. Some of these, like some Tory supporters, are ‘non-doms’. That means that they are not recorded as living here (because they are dodging UK taxes), yet they presume to buy political influence with their tax-free cash. Does that sound ‘fresh’ and ‘clean’?

Clegg and his Party offer no alternative to the orthodoxy of austerity pushed by the Tories. Nick Clegg promised, at his Party Conference last year, bold and even "savage" cuts in government spending that he claimed would be necessary to bring the public deficit down after the next election. Clegg set out plans including a long-term freeze in the public sector pay bill, scaling back future public sector pensions, and withdrawing tax credits from the middle class. He is even prepared to examine means-testing universal child benefits.

In many solidly working class areas the Tories are so widely hated that they never had a realistic prospect of getting more than a handful of seats on the council. So the opposition to Labour has been taken over by the Liberal Democrats, who are really Tories in yellow rosettes. As an opportunist capitalist party, they take on whatever colouring is convenient to win support and office. For instance leaflets from the Lib Dems in Holborn and St Pancras cry, “Stop Arming Israel Now”. Holborn has a large Muslim population. Nearby in Kilburn and Hampstead the local party boasts that Clegg attended an event sponsored by Jewish News. This, of course, is intended to go down well with the local Jewish population.

Famously the Liberals who ruled Tower Hamlets in the 1970s flirted with racism and the far right National Front. In Southwark and Bermondsey they ran a vicious homophobic campaign against Peter Tatchell. The irony was only recently revealed when the Lib Dem victor, Simon Hughes, had his secret gay past revealed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article720273.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Billy Bragg working for the right-wing establishment broadsheet, The Daily Telegraph

Far from being a fresh face in politics, the Liberal Democrats are Tories in all but name. Whilst you dream up new sound-bites for your media appearances fom you costal mansion in Dorset working class people are about to suffer at the hands of your new darlings of government. Sorry, Bill, but you cannot speak for the working class like some leader or spokesman when not only have you shown yourself to be hoodwinked by blatantly opportunist carreerist politicians but are also attemtping to serve them up to that very elite class as victims to the slaughter.

The Liberal Democrats progressive mask has slipped, revealing the old discredited face of Tweedledum and Tweedledee politics that the workers turned their backs on when they took the historic decision to set-up a Labour Party to represent their own class interests. Class is the defining feature of British politics. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats are prepared to make cuts because that is what the bankers and landowners needs. The solution is for workers to reclaim Labour as a working class party with a socialist programme.

I urge you to reconsider this foolhardy flirtation with a party of wealth and privilge and return to your roots. You will be welcomed with open arms. Infact, just to be cheeky, I end with your own words...

In conclusion, bear in memory, keep this password in your mind
Worker's strength cannot be broken when unions be combined
Stand up tall and stand together, victory for you prevail
Oh keep your hands upon your wages and your eye upon the scale

fraternally,

Paul Nelson

Bragg in his former Red Wedge incarnation with Ken Livingstone, Kinnock and Paul Weller

Police being used as political tool by Thatcher at Orgreave during Miners Strike, an echo of the Diggers struggle

The political and social upheaval that resulted from the English Civil War in the seventeenth century [effectively two conflicts between 1642 -1646 and 1647/48] led to the development of a set of radical ideas centred around movements known as ‘Diggers’ and ‘Levellers’

The Diggers [or ‘True Levellers’] were led by William Everard who had served in the New Model Army. As the name implies, the diggers aimed to use the earth to reclaim the freedom that they felt had been lost partly through the Norman Conquest; by seizing the land and owning it ‘in common’ they would challenge what they considered to be the slavery of property. They were opposed to the use of force and believed that they could create a classless society simply through seizing land and holding it in the ‘common good’.

To this end, a small group [initially 12, though rising to 50] settled on common land first at St George’s Hill and later in Cobham, Surrey and grew corn and other crops. This small group defied the landlords, the Army and the law for over a year. In addition to this, groups travelled through England attempting to rally supporters. In this they had some successes in Kent and Northamptonshire. Their main propagandist was Gerard Winstanley who produced the clearest statement of Digger ideas in ‘The Law of Freedom in a Platform’ published in 1652. This was a defence and exposition of the notion of a classless society based in secularism and radical democracy

World Turned Upside Down (Diggers)
(Leon Rosselson)
Recorded by both Dick Gaughan and Billy Bragg

In 1649
To St George's Hill
A ragged band they called the Diggers
Came to show the people' s will
They defied the landlords
They defied the laws
They were the dispossessed
Reclaiming what was theirs
We come in peace, they said
To dig and sow
We come to work the land in common
And to make the waste land grow
This earth divided
We will make whole
So it can be
A common treasury for all.
The sin of property
We do disdain
No one has any right to buy and sell
The earth for private gain
By theft and murder
They took the land
Now everywhere the walls
Rise up at their command.
They make the laws
To chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven
Or they damn us into hell
We will not worship
The God they serve
The God of greed who feeds the rich
While poor men starve
We work, we eat together
We need no swords
We will not bow to masters
Or pay rent to the lords
We are free men
Though we are poor
You Diggers all stand up for glory
Stand up now
From the men of property
The orders came
They sent the hired men and troopers
To wipe out the Diggers' claim
Tear down their cottages
Destroy their corn
They were dispersed -
Only the vision lingers on
You poor take courage
You rich take care
The earth was made a common treasury
For everyone to share
All things in common
All people one
We come in peace
The order came to cut them down

Home page located at: http://www.diggers.org

New Poem

I Wanted To Write You

I wanted to write you a poem

   that young lovers a century from now

      will chant in a hushed mantra to their love.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that described the sparkle in your seaside eyes

      so perfectly people would understand.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that monks and angels would recite aloud

      to feel closer to their gods.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that compared your smile to

      the warmth of the rising sun.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that would be uncovered in a dusty vault

      and make people gasp and blush.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that could describe your beauty

      more perfectly than any portrait ever could.

I wanted to write you a poem

   that would make even woodland creatures

      pause in silent respect and awe.

I wanted to write you a poem

   full of all these things

      but all I could find were these words.

February 2013

Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange

Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers

A supporter of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty

Seumas Milne

Tuesday 21 August 2012 21.30 BST

Considering he made his name with the biggest leak of secret government documents in history, you might imagine there would be at least some residual concern for Julian Assange among those trading in the freedom of information business. But the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting.

This is a man, after all, who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything. But as far as the bulk of the press is concerned, Assange is nothing but a "monstrous narcissist", a bail-jumping "sex pest" and an exhibitionist maniac. After Ecuador granted him political asylum and Assange delivered a "tirade" from its London embassy's balcony, fire was turned on the country's progressive president, Rafael Correa, ludicrously branded a corrupt "dictator" with an "iron grip" on a benighted land.

The ostensible reason for this venom is of course Assange's attempt to resist extradition to Sweden (and onward extradition to the US) over sexual assault allegations – including from newspapers whose record on covering rape and violence against women is shaky, to put it politely. But as the row over his embassy refuge has escalated into a major diplomatic stand-off, with the whole of South America piling in behind Ecuador, such posturing looks increasingly specious.

Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?

To get a grip on what is actually going on, rewind to WikiLeaks' explosive release of secret US military reports and hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables two years ago. They disgorged devastating evidence of US war crimes and collusion with death squads in Iraq on an industrial scale, the machinations and lies of America's wars and allies, its illegal US spying on UN officials – as well as a compendium of official corruption and deceit across the world.

WikiLeaks provided fuel for the Arab uprisings. It didn't just deliver information for citizens to hold governments everywhere to account, but crucially opened up the exercise of US global power to democratic scrutiny. Not surprisingly, the US government made clear it regarded WikiLeaks as a serious threat to its interests from the start, denouncing the release of confidential US cables as a "criminal act".

Vice-president Joe Biden has compared Assange to a "hi-tech terrorist". Shock jocks and neocons have called for him to be hunted down and killed. Bradley Manning, the 24-year-old soldier accused of passing the largest trove of US documents to WikiLeaks, who has been held in conditions described as "cruel and inhuman" by the UN special rapporteur on torture, faces up to 52 years in prison.

The US administration yesterday claimed the WikiLeaks founder was trying to deflect attention from his Swedish case by making "wild allegations" about US intentions. But the idea that the threat of US extradition is some paranoid WikiLeaks fantasy is absurd.

A grand jury in Virginia has been preparing a case against Assange and WikiLeaks for espionage, a leak earlier this year suggested that the US government has already issued a secret sealed indictment against Assange, while Australian diplomats have reported that the WikiLeaks founder is the target of an investigation that is "unprecedented both in its scale and its nature".

The US interest in deterring others from following the WikiLeaks path is obvious. And it would be bizarre to expect a state which over the past decade has kidnapped, tortured and illegally incarcerated its enemies, real or imagined, on a global scale – and continues to do so under President Barack Obama – to walk away from what Hillary Clinton described as an "attack on the international community". In the meantime, the US authorities are presumably banking on seeing Assange further discredited in Sweden.
None of that should detract from the seriousness of the rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial. The question is how to achieve justice for the women involved while protecting Assange (and other whistleblowers) from punitive extradition to a legal system that could potentially land him in a US prison cell for decades.

The politicisation of the Swedish case was clear from the initial leak of the allegations to the prosecutor's decision to seek Assange's extradition for questioning – described by a former Stockholm prosecutor as "unreasonable, unfair and disproportionate" – when the authorities have been happy to interview suspects abroad in more serious cases.

And given the context, it's also hardly surprising that sceptics have raised the links with US-funded anti-Cuban opposition groups of one of those making the accusations – or that campaigners such as the London-based Women Against Rape have expressed scepticism at the "unusual zeal" with which rape allegations were pursued against Assange in a country where rape convictions have fallen. The danger, of course, is that the murk around this case plays into a misogynist culture in which rape victims aren't believed.

But why, Assange's critics charge, would he be more likely to be extradited to the US from Sweden than from Britain, Washington's patsy, notorious for its one-sided extradition arrangements. There are specific risks in Sweden – for example, its fast-track "temporary surrender" extradition agreement it has with the US. But the real point is that Assange is in danger of extradition in both countries – which is why Ecuador was right to offer him protection.
The solution is obvious. It's the one that Ecuador is proposing – and that London and Stockholm are resisting. If the Swedish government pledged to block the extradition of Assange to the US for any WikiLeaks-related offence (which it has the power to do) – and Britain agreed not to sanction extradition to a third country once Swedish proceedings are over – then justice could be served. But with loyalty to the US on the line, Assange shouldn't expect to leave the embassy any time soon.

Twitter: @SeumasMilne

Julian Assange speaks from Ecuador's London Embassy Balcony

Former UK Ambassador Backs Assange!

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray

Craig Murray, 53, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, speaking on BBC Newsnight yesterday, said: "I think incidents which are dubious themselves as to what has happened, and Julian Assange has denied the accusations against him, are being seized on as a political agenda.

"It's well worth people going online to discover what they can about the allegations, about how they were made, who made them, what the people who made them did afterwards, and look at what happened.

"Let us look at the conduct of these women. I'm going to say some things I know to be true."
Murray was sacked by the Foreign Office in 2004 after lowing the whistle on state-sponsored brutality in Uzbekistan and has since become a human rights campaigner.

It is thought his comments, including the name of "Woman A" in the Assange case, relate to more more than 100 text messages between the two complainants and their friends, which contained important evidence about the allegations and the women’s motives. For example, the second complainant [Woman B], Sofia Wilén, had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters with Julian over the course of the evening in question and states that she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”: a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case. Further, the women speak of getting “revenge”, making money from the allegations and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to the press.

The Swedish Prosecutors have repeatedly refused to give Assange's defence team a copy of these texts and tweets!!!

Interestingly, the person who invited Assange to Sweden is infact one and the same [Woman A] Anna Ardin, who is now accusing Assange of assault. She is a minor right-wing Christian Democrat politician and a close friend, colleague and political ally of the current prosecutor in the case, and has written anti-Palestinian Zionist articles for a publisher funded by the CIA. She also penned a seven-point article on how to seek revenge on ex-boyfriends...seven months before she met Assange!

7 Steps to Legal Revenge by Anna Ardin

19 January, 2010

I’ve been thinking about some revenge over the last few days and came across a very good side who inspired me to this seven-point revenge instruction in Swedish.

Steg 1 / Step 1

Tänk igenom väldigt noga om du verkligen ska hämnas.

Consider very carefully if you really must take revenge.

Det är nästan alltid bättre att förlåta än att hämnas

It is almost always better to forgive than to avenge

Steg 2 / Step 2

Tänk igenom varför du ska hämnas.

Think about why you want revenge.

Du behöver alltså inte bara vara på det klara med vem du ska hämnas på utan också varför. Hämnd ska aldrig riktas mot bara en person, utan även möta en viss handling.

You need to be clear about who to take revenge on, as well as why. Revenge is never directed against only one person, but also the actions of the person.

Steg 3 / Step 3

Proportionalitetsprincipen.

The principle of proportionality.

Kom ihåg att hämnden inte bara ska matcha dådet i storlek utan även i art.

Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature.

En bra hämnd är kopplad till det som gjorts mot dig.

A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you.

Om du till exempel vill hämnas på någon som varit otrogen eller som dumpat dig, så bör straffet ha något med dejting/sex/trohet att göra.

For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.

Steg 4 / Step 4

Gör en brainstorm kring lämpliga åtgärder för kategorin av hämnd du är ute efter. För att fortsätta exemplet ovan så kan du paja ditt offers nuvarande relation, fixa så att dennes nye partner är otrogen eller se till att han får en galning efter sig.

Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him.

Använd din fantasi!

Use your imagination!

Steg 5 / Step 5

Tänk ut hur du kan hämnas systematiskt.

Figure out how you can systematically take revenge.

Kanske kan en serie brev och foton som får den nya att tro att ni ännu ses bättre än bara en stor lögn vid ett enstaka tillfälle?

Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion

Steg 6 / Step 6

Ranka dina systematiska hämndscheman från låg till hög i termer av troligt lyckat genomförande, krävd insats från dig samt grad av tillfredsställelse om du lyckas.

Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed.

Den ideala hämnden ligger givetvis så högt som möjligt i dessa staplar, men ofta kan en ökad insats av arbete och kapital ge säkrare output för de andra två, egentligen viktigare parametrarna.

The ideal, of course, is a revenge as strong as possible but this requires a lot of hard work and effort for it to turn out exactly as you want it to.

Step 7 / Step 7

Skrid till verket. Get to work. Och kom ihåg vilket ditt mål är medan du opererar, se till att ditt offer får lida på samma sätt som han fick dig att lida.

And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer.

Entry Filed under: politik .

Entry Filed under: politics .

Taggar: hämnd , revenge , laglig hämnd , hämnas , återgälda , straffa .

Tags: revenge , revenge , revenge lawful , avenge , reciprocate , punish.

 

Faux-feminist Anna Ardin

Anna Ardin, known in Sweden for her misandry and faux-feminist views on how men achieve social dominance through sex, has been known to be bent on revenge. It is also noted that this is not the first time Ardin has accused someone for molestation of a sexual nature in Sweden.

Ardin has spent some time in several South American countries as well as an intern at the Swedish Embassy in Buenos Aires [pages 3 through 5 here] and in Cuba where she was working with anti-Castro groups linked with the CIA and funded by the US (Carlos Alberto Montaner – a former CIA agent convicted in the mass murder of seventy three Cubans on an airliner he was involved in blowing up) until this “leftist” Anna Ardin was kicked out of the country.

In Cuba she apparently interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las Damas de Blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter. Hebe de Bonafini, President of the Argentine Madres de Plaza de Mayo remarked that “the so-called Ladies in White defend the terrorism of the United States.”
Anna Ardin's cousin, who she remains close to after growing-up together, is Lieutenant Colonel Mattias Ardin, Deputy Head of Operations, Swedish Joint Forces Land Component Command, who works with NATO Operations in Afghanistan.

Virginia Woolf

"We do not know our own souls, let alone the souls of others. Human beings do not go hand in hand the whole stretch of the way. There is a virgin forest in each; a snowfield where even the print of birds' feet is unknown. here we go alone, and like it better so."


Virginia Woolf
[25 January 1882 – 28 March 1941]

John Lydon on BBCQT...

I was somewhat startled to see multi-millionaire "solid working class lad", former punk icon and butter merchant John Lydon gurning away on BBC1s flagship debating show Question Time last night...


Now is it just me or is there a startling resemblance between Brother Lydon and...

Well...huhhh huhh huh...here they...could you repeat the question?...huhhh huhh
oh yeah...Hey, this sucks! I want 'em drugs too! Butter!

Human Rights Concerns Regarding the "Case" Against Julian Assange

Brief submitted to the meeting of MPs of the Federal Parliament, at Parliament House, Canberra (March 2011), discussing extradition aspects in the Swedish case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

by Jennifer Robinson 

1. I am writing to you to provide a briefing for the meeting of members of Federal Parliament on Wednesday 2 March 2011 regarding the case against Julian Assange. This briefing note sets out the timeline of events and the human rights concerns that we have raised in relation to Julian’s case in Sweden. 

2. Julian is facing extradition to Sweden pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). He is currently electronically tagged and held under virtual house arrest, having spent nine days in solitary confinement in a London prison for a crime that he has not been charged with and in relation to allegations that he emphatically denies.

3. It is mutually concerning that an Australian citizen like Julian has been treated in ways which would not accord with the standards of Australian law or indeed international law. As I set out in this note, if he is extradited to Sweden, he will be held incommunicado, in solitary confinement, and without bail for several months and then tried in secret on allegations which are weak and which would not constitute a crime in Australia or in the UK. In such event, it can be predicted that Australians will be outraged and that considerable damage will eventuate in respect of relations between Australia and Sweden. 

4. It is hoped that this briefing note will act as a resource for concerned Australian MPs to raise questions and to take action on Julian’s behalf. 

Timeline of Events and Overview of Concerns  

5. Julian had travelled to Sweden in August last year for the purposes of giving public lectures about his work on Afghanistan and in order to seek protection for WikiLeaks from the strong free speech and publication protections under Swedish law in advance of the Iraq War Logs, the publication of Iraq war military reports, and “Cablegate”, the publication of US diplomatic cables. The allegations against Julian were made to police on 20 August 2010.

6. That same day, the initial Prosecutor, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, unlawfully told the press that Julian was wanted for rape (reported in the tabloid Expressen) before he himself had been informed. Julian first learned of the allegations when he read it in the papers. In providing this information to the press the Prosecutor contravened Swedish privacy and secrecy law, which protects the confidentiality of preliminary criminal investigations and is supposed to protect those being investigated from adverse and prejudicial media coverage. A complaint was made about the Prosecutor’s illegal act to the Judicial Ombudsman but no action is being taken. As a result of this illegal act, Julian discovered in the press that he was ‘wanted for double rape’. Within hours there were millions of website hits for “Assange” and “rape”, causing irreparable and incalculable damage to his reputation. The illegality of the Prosecutor’s actions was confirmed by our expert evidence in the extradition proceedings here in London, as was the fact that no remedy exists in Swedish law for the breach. 

7. The next day, Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finne, threw out the rape charge after reviewing the police file and the statements of the two women. The investigation continued on lesser allegations of harassment only. Julian volunteered himself for interview on 30 August 2010 in relation to this ongoing investigation. Julian sought an undertaking from the police that his testimony would not be provided to the press. This undertaking was violated: his police interview turned up in the tabloid Expressen the very next day. Again, Julian has no remedy against this breach of privacy and the continued disclosures by police have continued to fuel prejudicial media coverage.

8. An appeal was brought against Ms Finne’s decision to drop the rape charges by a lawyer acting for the complainants, Mr Claes Borgstrom. Mr Borgstrom is a Social Democrat politician who was, at that time, campaigning for election in the election to be held the following month (September 2010) and whose political platform and reputation is closely associated with sexual offence law reform. The Prosecutor, Ms Ny, granted the appeal on 1 September 2010 and the rape investigation was reinstituted. Julian was not informed of this appeal or provided the opportunity to make any submissions. 

9. The Prosecution continued to provide information about the preliminary investigation to the press. Expressen applied for access to the police file on 1 September and this was granted: redacted versions of Julian’s statement and emails between the police and prosecutor were provided to the press shortly thereafter. We were only alerted to this on 21 January 2010, some four months later, when this same material was disclosed by the Prosecutor to Mr Hurtig and passed to us. It is noteworthy that Mr Hurtig had applied for disclosure of the police file in September and November 2010. Both requests for disclosure were denied by the Prosecutor, Ms Ny, despite the fact that some of this material had already been provided to the press.

10. Julian remained in Sweden for approximately FIVE weeks to answer the allegations against him. Through his lawyer Mr Hurtig, proactive attempts were made to arrange interview and to seek permission to leave the country. For example, Julian offered himself for interview on 15 September but this was rejected by the prosecutor because the relevant police officer was sick. 

11. An interview was finally proposed on 22 September (more than three weeks after Ms Ny had begun the investigation) for 28 September. Mr Hurtig was unable to contact Julian to communicate this request. It is important to note here that Julian was, at that time, difficult to contact. He was maintaining a low profile because of threats to his security and increasing pressure from the US in advance of the two largest disclosures of US classified documents in history: the Pentagon had just announced a team of 120 people dedicated to “taking action” against WikiLeaks. Before Mr Hurtig was able to contact Julian he had already left Sweden for Berlin for WikiLeaks meetings associated, having been told on 15 September that Ms Ny had no objection to him leaving the country. He did not flee the country to avoid interrogation, as has been suggested by the Prosecution, but instead had left for a pre-arranged business meeting with Der Spiegel - one of his media partners in Cablegate, on the understanding that there was no impediment to him leaving the country.

12. Julian telephoned Mr Hurtig from Berlin on 29 September to inform him that his luggage had gone missing on his Stockholm-Berlin flight and that it was now presumed to have been stolen since the airline had not been able to locate and return it. He called to instruct Mr Hurtig to take legal action. It was then he was informed of Ms Ny’s intention to interrogate him. Julian offered to return to Sweden on 9-10 October for interrogation. This date was rejected as being ‘too far away’. 

13. During October and November, Julian was in London working on the Iraq War Log release and preparing for Cablegate with media partners, including The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais and The New York Times. He also travelled to Switzerland to present at a United Nations Human Rights Council meeting. During this period, we offered that Julian be interviewed via telephone or video-link from London on the condition that the Prosecutor provide him further information about the allegations and potential charges. We offered his voluntary co-operation, through his Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig, and suggested the use of the Mutual Legal Assistance scheme between Sweden and the United Kingdom. These offers were rejected.

 
Human Rights for All

14. In the meantime, I wrote to the UK police on 2 November 2010 and informed them that we acted for Julian and that he could be contacted through us for the purposes of any legal proceedings. This is significant: throughout this period Julian had continually indicated his willingness to co-operate with the authorities by offering alternative means of interview to the Swedish and by reporting his presence in the UK to the local police. The widely reported suggestion he was in hiding from justice is simply false.

  

15. After our voluntary offers of co-operation were rejected, the arrest warrant in Sweden was granted on 18 November 2010. Ms Ny, the Prosecutor, sought an arrest order to have Julian held incommunicado pending potential trial. These pre-trial detention conditions in Sweden have been heavily criticised by the European Council and by the United Nations, in particular, for the treatment of foreigners.

16. Just before the hearing on 18 November Mr Hurtig was, for the first time, provided a description of the allegations against Julian and provided copies of parts of the police file. At that time he was also shown more than 100 text messages between the two complainants and their friends, which contained important evidence about the allegations and the women’s motives. For example, the second complainant had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters with Julian over the course of the evening in question and states that she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”: a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case. Further, the women speak of getting “revenge”, making money from the allegations and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to the press. However, the prosecutor refused to allow Mr Hurtig to take copies or to even take notes from this important evidence. 

17. Mr Hurtig has made numerous requests for further disclosure under Swedish Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 23.18), but these have been denied. In correspondence with the Australian Embassy in Stockholm, Ms Ny justifies her position in refusing to disclose this important material on the grounds that Julian has not yet been charged. This highlights the injustice of the EAW system: Julian has been held in solitary confinement and is now under effective house arrest without the Swedish Prosecutor having to show a reasonable case against him - or, indeed, any of the evidence against him to the British court.

18. Despite Mr Hurtig’s requests, Ms Ny had consistently refused to inform Julian regarding the specific charges to be brought against him before he was interviewed: interview by ambush is the preferred Swedish method. We had requested a specific description of the charges and the evidence in English as a condition precedent to Julian returning to Sweden to be interviewed. This, again, was refused. The first time document Julian received from the Prosecutor in English was the translation of the EAW provided by the English police at Kentish Town Police station in London when Julian voluntarily met with police to answer the warrant on 7 December 2010. This was the first time he had been informed in writing of the specific allegations and potential charges against him in English. I was with Julian at the police station and witnessed his shock and surprise at reading the allegations as described in the warrant.

19. It is noteworthy that the both the EAW and the Interpol red notice were issued for Julian by Sweden just before WikiLeaks began to publish Cablegate with their media partners and were executed just days after publication began. Had Julian returned to Sweden in October or November, we know (confirmed by the findings of the judge in London on 24 February 2011) that he would have been held incommunicado in prison pending trial and we may not have seen the release of Cablegate. Furthermore, his Swedish counsel, Mr Hurtig noted at the time that it was highly irregular for an international arrest warrant to be sought in relation to allegations of this kind.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, lawyer Jennifer Robinson, and Kristin Hrafnsson, approaching the Royal Courts in London at the extradition hearing 

20. The Swedish prosecutor has failed to disclose any materials to Julian in English (the language he understands), which is her obligation under the European Convention of Human Rights. We have since been provided certain excerpts of the police file in Swedish and translation costs now exceed £20,000 (AUD$32,000) as a result of the Prosecutor’s failure to meet her human rights obligations in this regard. Furthermore, she has failed to disclose relevant exculpatory evidence that tends to demonstrate Julian’s innocence.

 21. The Prosecutor has apparently failed to consider and disclose exculpatory evidence in her investigation, as is her duty as prosecutor.

• (1) First, it is clear that the text messages (approximately 100 of them) between the two complainants and their friends cast doubt on the allegations and contradict the specific factual allegations in the EAW that form the basis of his arrest - though we are unable to properly assess these because the Prosecutor refuses to disclose them to Julian.
• (2) Second, it has subsequently come to light that the first complainant, Ms A, has been deleting important evidence (i.e. tweets which demonstrated that she had been enjoying Julian’s company after the alleged assault). It is not clear whether this evidence has been considered because, despite the fact it was provided to the Prosecution by Mr Rudling, it does not form part of the police file disclosed to us.
• (3) Third, the Prosecutor has not contacted several potential witnesses who spent time with Mr Assange and the first complainant, Ms A, who know them both and can attest to their friendly relations in the days after the alleged assault. 

22. The parts of the police file disclosed to the defence on 18 November 2010 (translated at significant cost to Julian) demonstrate that police have acted improperly and in breach of proper procedures in investigating sexual offence allegations.

• (1) First, it is clear that the women met together before making the allegations and had discussed the evidence at length, thereby contaminating their evidence. 
• (2) Second, it has since come to light that the policewoman who had interviewed both women and initially reported the alleged rape to the Prosecutor was a friend of the first complainant, Ms A, and had also run for election for the Social Democrats (the same party for which Ms A and her lawyer, Mr Borgstrom, have stood for election) .
• (3) Third, both women were interviewed only briefly over the telephone and their interrogation is in summary form only. Indeed, the second complainant’s interview summary is not even signed or approved by her (she was upset at hearing Julian had was wanted for rape and her friend’s later interview to the police states that she felt “railroaded” into making the complaint). This breaches police procedure: interviews with witnesses in sexual offence cases must be recorded in full (video or tape recorded) because the initial interview is important evidence at trial. It is notable that all of the Prosecution witnesses interviews are recorded in summary format so it is impossible to know what the police asked and what their precise answers were in response. Only the interviews with Mr Assange and his friendly witnesses were recorded in full. These irregularities in police procedure will cause evidential problems in any trial, particularly if the reliability of the complainants’ testimony is in question. 

23. As to the strength of the evidence that founds the basis for the warrant, a number of observations can be made. First, evidence at the extradition hearing in London brought to light that not one, but two well-regarded prosecutors in Stockholm do not believe there to be sufficient evidence to found a prosecution. Eva Finne dropped the rape investigation in August but was overruled on appeal. Ms Ny’s own deputy, Prosecutor Erika Lejnefors, had told Mr Hurtig in November that the case would likely be dropped because it was so weak. Nevertheless, an international arrest warrant was sought for Julian’s arrest. Second, expert evidence from the most respected criminal lawyer in England, Professor Andrew Ashworth of Oxford University, concludes that the facts as alleged in the EAW and the police statements of the two women would not constitute rape or any other crime in England.

24. Further, Julian has suffered immense adverse prejudicial media coverage in Sweden, fuelled both by the disclosure of police material to the press by the Prosecution and by the highly prejudicial media statements of the lawyer of the two complainants and funded by the Swedish government, Mr Borgstrom. Mr Borgstrom has called Julian a “coward” for not returning to Sweden and has alleged that his refusal to return is indicative of his guilt. 

25. The Prime Minister of Sweden intervened in the case by making highly prejudicial and pejorative remarks in the Swedish press following the extradition proceedings in London on 7 and 8 February 2011. The Prime Minister told the press that Julian has been indicted and is being prosecuted for rape. This is not correct - Julian has not yet been charged, the preliminary investigation has not yet been concluded and no decision has been made to prosecute. The Prime Minister’s comments are inappropriate given his political position (he had, just weeks earlier, refused to comment on Julian’s case on the grounds it was a matter for the courts and not for politicians) and given that a key question being determined by the British court is whether the warrant is for questioning or for prosecution. The Prime Minister made pejorative remarks regarding Julian’s legal defence, including the incorrect suggestion that Julian’s defence is to deem women’s rights “of little value”. This was subsequently reported as Julian and his defence team “trying to limit the right for women to take a claimed sexual abuse to court”. This clearly and unfairly mischaracterises Julian’s defence case and has led to him being portrayed as an enemy of Sweden and of women’s rights in the Swedish press.

26. Other politicians have followed the Prime Minister in attacking Julian and his defence. For example, the Chancellor of Justice, Anna Skarhed, has described the defence as “shocking”. The Chancellor of Justice then states that the defence has accused the Swedish legal system of being “corrupt”: but anyone who has read our submissions or followed court proceedings will know this is simply not true. Our skeleton arguments and all of the case evidence filed with the court is available on our website: http://www.fsilaw.com/news-media/news/28-julian-assange-case-papers/. 

27. Given the nature of the press coverage in Sweden, we have grave concerns as to whether Julian will receive a fair trial: he will be tried in secret, behind closed doors, by a judge and three lay judges (jurors) who are appointed by political parties. The Swedish press does not seem at all concerned with the need for suspects to be presumed innocent and it is difficult to see how jurors could remain unaffected by this media coverage.
 

 Putting in order the legal puzzle of the case at the Royal Court in London

28. In summary, our concerns regarding the case in Sweden to date include:

• the unlawful and prejudicial disclosures by police and the prosecution regarding ongoing criminal investigations;

  

• the failure to disclose details of the allegations and the evidence in English;

  

• the breaches of police procedures in the investigation of the allegations;

  

• the apparent failure of the Prosecutor to consider exculpatory evidence;

  

• the disproportionate behaviour of the Prosecutor in refusing voluntary offers for co-operation and refusing to make use of alternative methods for interviewing Julian - insisting instead on an international warrant which unduly restricts his liberty;

  

• the pre-trial detention conditions sought by the Prosecutor;

  

• the prospect of a secret trial; and

  

• the adverse and prejudicial media coverage, fuelled by the state-funded lawyer for the complainants and the country’s most senior politicians, including the Prime Minister. 

Decision to grant extradition - 24 February 2011  

29. On 24 February 2011, District Judge Riddle ordered that Julian be extradited to Sweden. It must be noted that this is simply the initial ruling on the validity of a EAW and did not deal with the substance of the allegations against Julian, which he has always firmly denied. The judgment concerns whether it is technically valid for a EAW to be used in this manner. The strength or weakness of the allegations, and even their detail, cannot be heard in a EAW case. This is one of the central complaints made by law reformers about the EAW process - a civil liberties disaster and the subject of investigation and campaigns by human rights groups such as Fair Trials International.

30. It must be remembered that under the EAW system, the British courts are bound to regard the prosecutors of no less than 26 countries, including Poland and Romania – as perfect. The Extradition Act 2003 allows European countries to deem prosecutors and even policemen "as judicial authorities" (a contradiction in terms, because they are neither independent nor impartial) and to demand return of their suspects from the UK so long as they tick the right box on the EAW form. In Julian's case, for example, they ticked "rape" and the court cannot dispute that the allegation is of rape, even though the leading authority on sexual offences, the Oxford Professor Andrew Ashworth, disputes this characterisation. There can be no questioning on the merits of the charges – in 2003 parliament abolished the traditional right of a suspect to require foreign governments to show a prima facie case before dragging them off to unfair trials. It also took away the historic right of individuals facing extradition to show that the case against them was unfounded. 

31. Judge Riddle - a hostile judge - made a number of important factual findings. Judge Riddle ordered Julian’s extradition to Sweden despite the fact that he agreed that:

• upon return to Sweden Julian will be held incommunicado pending trial because Sweden has no system of bail; and

• Julian will be subjected to a secret trial, which is anathema to Australian and British traditions of open justice and an outrage given the widespread dissemination of the allegations against him by the Swedish authorities.

32. The decision to extradite Julian is not final, nor (as has been misreported) does it "determine his fate". Julian is permitted an appeal as of right by the 2003 Extradition Act. Thereafter, points of law may, with permission, be appealed to the Supreme Court. [Supreme Court Ruling, 30 May 2012]

33. The appeal to the High Court was filed today in London. The dates for this appeal are not yet available but we anticipate it will be heard sometime between April and June

34. It is our position that the EAW system should not simply be used as a rubber stamp, but instead ought to be used to improve the quality of justice throughout Europe. Extradition ought to be refused when the trial in prospect is likely to be unfair judged according to fundamental fair trial principles because only then can things improve and human rights blind spots be eradicated. If the British courts declare that open justice is the only possible justice by refusing to extradite Julian to Sweden, this would very likely have the result that Sweden would change its unacceptable policy. 

Action points for Australian MPs 

35. Julian remains willing to co-operate with the Swedish investigations, provided that certain guarantees are provided in respect of the human rights concerns raised above. We would encourage Australian MPs who are concerned at Julian’s treatment to raise the following concerns. 

36. First, to ask our government to seek guarantees from both the Swedish and British governments that Julian will not be extradited to the United States to face prosecution in relation to WikiLeaks publications. Any such prosecution would violate the right to free speech and the protections of the First Amendment. His concern about being extradited to the US is justified in light of:

• US Attorney-General Eric Holder’s ongoing criminal investigation;

• recent subpoenas of Twitter accounts of WikiLeaks, their associates and supporters, which proves an ongoing federal criminal investigation in Virginia and demonstrates intent to prosecute; and

  

• the recent statement by US Ambassador to the UK to the BBC that the US is waiting to see how things work out in the British courts.

  

37. Second, demands must be made of the Swedish authorities to ensure that, if Julian returns to Sweden, that his human rights will be protected. These include:

 

• The evidence in the case be disclosed to him in English, as is Sweden’s obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights. Full disclosure of the police file, including the exculpatory evidence such as the text messages, must be provided.

 

This request - made in November when an international arrest warrant was being threatened and extended by us to Mr Hurtig as condition precedent to Julian returning/being interviewed - has still not been complied with. Translation costs have exceeded £20,000 because of Sweden’s failure to meet their human rights obligations in this regard. It has also delayed our work and made our legal defence more difficult.

  

• A guarantee be provided that he will not be held incommunicado or in custody pending any trial.

  

Again, this was one of our concerns in October and November when Ms Ny requested that he return to Sweden - a concern that was validated on 18 November when Ms Ny sought an order for arrest that would have seen Julian held incommunicado pending trial. These pre-trial conditions have been criticised by international human rights bodies. Aside from human rights concerns, as noted above, Julian was at that time preparing for the release of the Iraq War Logs (23 October 2010) and Cablegate (28 November 2010). Had he returned to Sweden and been held incommunicado in pre-trial detention, these important and internationally significant WikiLeaks releases would have been jeopardised.

  

• A guarantee be provided that his trial be heard in public: the press and public should be permitted entry to the Court. Other measures, similar to those deployed in Australian courts, can be taken to protect the women in giving their testimony.

  

• A guarantee be provided that he will not be extradited to the United States, but instead will be allowed to travel back to Australia.

In considering the risk of extradition to the US from Sweden, it must be recalled that Sweden has a history of complying with US requests to hand over persons of interest notwithstanding potential human rights concerns - international bodies have recently found Sweden liable for handing asylum seekers over to the CIA for torture [see Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden (Communication No. 1416/2005, UN Human Rights Committee) and Ahmed Hussein Mustafa Kamil Agiza v. Sweden (Communication No. 233/2003, UN Committee Against Torture, Decision of 24 May 2005 (CAT/C/34/D/233/2003)].

Further, WikiLeaks cables released last December demonstrate that intelligence sharing and co-operation between Sweden and the US is far deeper than anyone had realised, calling into question Sweden’s perceived neutrality, and the extent of this cooperation had been hidden from the Swedish Parliament and the Swedish people.

Jennifer Robinson