“One of the
most fundamental human rights -- that of the presumption of innocence -- has
been breached over and over again in Assange's case. Convicted of no
crime, he has been the object of character assassination --perfidious and
inhuman -- and highly political smear, of which the evidence is
voluminous.”
The
full interview with author, documentary filmmaker and journalist John Pilger
conducted by Thomas Hall, of Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN). Pilger gave
his answers on the 28th of May, which DN did not publish in the Swedish version of the 30th of May "Aktivister litar inte på Sverige" ("Aktivist do not trust Sweden"). Pilger was NOT "attacking" the Swedish system as DN made appeared when quoting some of Pilger's text. Professors
blogg, however, is proud to publish this unreleased, full text material, by John Pilger.
Author John Pilger
DN: Julian Assange has ben fighting extradition to Sweden at a number of British courts. Why do you think it is important that he wins on Wednesday?
John Pilger: Because the attempt to extradite Assange is unjust and political.
I have read almost every scrap of evidence in this case and it's clear, in
terms of natural justice, that no crime was committed. The case would not
have got this far had it not been for the intervention of Claes Borgström, a
politician who saw an opportunity when the Stockholm prosecutor threw out
almost all the police allegations. Borgström was then in the middle of an
election campaign. When asked why the case was proceeding when both
women had said that the sex had been consensual with Assange, he replied,
"Ah, but they're not lawyers." If the Supreme Court in London
rejects Assange's appeal, the one hope is the independence of the Swedish
courts. However, as the London Independent has revealed, Sweden
and the US have already begun talks on Assange's "temporary
surrender" to the US -- where he faces concocted charges and the
prospect of unlimited solitary confinement. And for what? For telling
epic truths. Every Swede who cares about justice and the reputation of his or
her society should care deeply about this.
You have said that Julian Assange's human rights have been breached.
In what way?
One of the most fundamental human rights -- that of the presumption of
innocence -- has been breached over and over again in Assange's
case. Convicted of no crime, he has been the object of character
assassination --perfidious and inhuman -- and highly political smear, of
which the evidence is voluminous. This is what Britain's most distinguished
and experienced human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, has written: "Given
the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely
false assumptions ... it is very hard to preserve for [Assange] any
presumption of innocence. He has now hanging over him not one but two
Damocles swords of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in
turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own
country. [and] his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that
are highly politically charged."
You, as well as Julian Assange, don't seem to have
confidence in the Swedish judicial system. Why not?
It's difficult to have confidence in a prosecutorial system
that is so contradictory and flagrantly uses the media to achieve its
aims. Whether or not the Supreme Court in London find for or against Assange,
the fact that this case has reached the highest court in this country is
itself a condemnation of the competence and motivation of those so eager to
incarcerate him, having already had plenty of opportunity to to question him
properly. What a waste all this is.
If Julian Assange is innocent, as he says, would it not have been
better if he had gone to Stockholm to sort things out?
Assange tried to "sort things out", as you put it. Right
from the beginning, he offered repeatedly to be questioned -- first in
Sweden, then in the UK. He sought and received permission to leave Sweden -
which makes a nonsense of the claim that he has avoided questioning. The
prosecutor who has since pursued him has refused to give any explanation
about why she will not use standard procedures, which Sweden and the UK have
signed up to.
IF the Supreme Court decides that Julain Assange can/should be extradited
to Sweden, what consequences/risks do you see for Julian Assange?
First, I would draw on my regard for ordinary Swedes' sense of
fairness and justice. Alas, overshadowing that is a Swedish elite that has
forged sinister and obsequious links with Washington. These powerful
people have every reason to see Julian Assange as a threat. For one thing,
their vaunted reputation for neutrality has been repeatedly exposed as a
sham in US cables leaked by WikiLeaks. One cable revealed that "the
extent of [Sweden's military and intelligence] co-operation [with Nato] is
not widely known" and unless kept secret "would open up the
government to domestic criticism". Another was entitled "WikiLeaks
puts neutrality in the dustbin of history". Don't the Swedish public
have a right to know what the powerful say in private in their name?
What decision do you expect on Wednesday?
That's impossible to predict.
© John Pilger
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment