crisis blog. There are 5 items with 5 dotted links: Item
1 is about Julian Assange, as is item 2, to
which I pay a little more attention; item 3
is about Jeremy Corbyn who recently speeched. There is a video, but it
only shows the central part on my computer. The speech is OK. Item 4 is about the candidates of the Republican
Party, who indeed are all horrible, albeit in varying degrees; and item 5 is about the proposed new spying "laws" of
Great Britain, which are extremely sick and morally totally
Assange Remains “Deprived of Liberty” After U.K. Rejects U.N. Ruling
by Alex Emmons on The Intercept:
A United Nations panel ruled
on Friday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily
detained,” but British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond rejected what
he called “a ridiculous finding.”
Although he claimed
“sweet” vindication, Assange nevertheless remains confined in the
Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has lived since 2012.
Assange has been fighting extradition by
British authorities to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning
concerning accusations of rape and molestation. He has never been
charged with a crime.
The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention called on the U.K. and Sweden “to end Mr. Assange’s
deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of
movement, and afford him the right to compensation.”
That is about it. There is more in the
article, but these are the main points.
And here is some more on the same subject:
2."A Significant Victory": Julian
Assange Hails U.N. Panel Calling for His Freedom
is by Amy Goodman and Juan González on Democracy Now!:
AMYGOODMAN: Seong-Phil Hong, the rapporteur
of the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, spoke this morning.
working group maintains the arbitrary detention of Mr. Assange should
be brought to an end. And his physical integrity and his freedom of
movement should be respected. And finally, if necessary, he should be
entitled to an enforceable right to remedy—for example, compensation.
AMYGOODMAN: The U.N. panel’s judgment is not
legally binding. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond dismissed it
How should I call an utterly ridiculous
governmental asshole like Philip Hammond? I will call him nothing and
proceed to a lawyer who spoke for Julian Assange:
MELINDATAYLOR: So, finally, we
have the verdict of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention. And they issued a very detailed opinion, which considers all
arguments from Sweden and the United Kingdom. And this decision dispels
the myth that Mr. Assange is either a fugitive from justice or that he
could just walk out of the embassy. It is a damning indictment of the
manner in which this case has been handled. It further affirms that Mr.
Assange is a victim of a significant miscarriage of justice that is
attributable to the action and inaction of both Sweden and the United
Kingdom. It further emphasized Julian’s continued willingness to
cooperate with the investigations in this case at all stages of the
I think this is a
fair statement on Assange's views.
GONZÁLEZ: And, Mads Andenæs, I wanted to ask you—The
Guardian newspaper had an editorial
basically not backing—not backing Julian Assange, and saying that the
U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, that this latest opinion, is
simply wrong. It says, "He is not being detained arbitrarily.
Three-and-a-half years ago, he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy
in order to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex
offences. ... 'Arbitrary' detention," The Guardian says,
"means that due legal process has not been observed. It has. This is a
publicity stunt." What do you say to that?
I only indicate my own views of
The Guardian, which have radically changed since The Guardian
locked copying and started adding incredible amounts of
What I say is that The Guardian has turned into a Blairite
Facebook that spies upon anyone as much as they can, and that is a mere
shadow from its former
liberal/leftist past self.
To me it is pretty disgusting, but
I grant that is where the money is.
Also, I can still get the texts of the
articles The Guardian publishes (with Emac or with Viewsource) - but
to anymore: I've given up on The Guardian.
The old Guardian is dead, and the new
"Guardian" spies all it can.
Jeremy Corbyn Takes Down Big Banks During Surprise Appearance
third item is by Natasha Hakimi Zapata on Truthdig:
Billed as an event featuring comedians,
and other artists and activists who supported Jeremy Corbyn, the
audience at O2 Forum Kentish Town, a London
concert hall, expected just about anyone but the Labour Party leader
himself to appear Thursday night at the #JC4PM show.
Corbyn began and ended his rousing
speech by thanking his
supporters and reminding them of the work they have cut out for them in
the years leading up to the 2020 election, when he plans to run for
prime minister of the United Kingdom. Reflecting on his campaign for
Labour leadership in 2015, the British politician said, “The bankers
created a crisis, the government’s responded by cutting services,
increasing the costs of the poorest people and making the richest even
richer. And we said, ‘No, that is the wrong way around.’ ”
Jeremy Corbyn is quite right. Here is his
speech, which is OK. For some reason I only got the middle part of the
video on my computer, also directly from Youtube (and no, I do not do
4. A Proto-Fascist, a Christian
Theocrat, and an Ayn Rand Neoliberal as Leading Candidates
The House of Commons Science and Tech
Committee has published its report
on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, influenced by comments
submitted by 50 individuals, companies, and organizations, including
EFF. The report is the first of three investigations by different
Parliamentary committees. While it was intended to concentrate on the
technological and business ramifications of the bill, their conclusions
reflect the key concern of lawmakers, companies, and human rights
groups about the bill’s dangerously vague wording.
The Investigatory Powers Bill, as
written, is so vague as to permit a vast range of surveillance actions,
with profoundly insufficient oversight or insight into what Britain’s
intelligence, military and police intend to do with their powers. It
is, in effect, a carefully-crafted loophole wide enough to drive all of
existing mass surveillance practice through. Or, in the words of
Richard Clayton, Director of the Cambridge Cloud Cybercrime Centre at
the University of Cambridge, in his submissions to the committee: “the
present bill forbids almost nothing … and hides radical new
capabilities behind pages of obscuring detail.”
I am not amazed, indeed also not at the
"lawyers" - criminals with degrees in lying and deceiving - who obfuscated
the "legal" texts.
The bill also provides for the UK
government to compel companies and individuals to comply with its
surveillance demands, including those located outside Britain, and to
bar companies from revealing that they were the subject of such
demands. As the committee says in its conclusions, “We believe the
industry case regarding public fear about ‘equipment interference’ is
Yes, indeed. It is complete moral degeneracy,
but this is what the present English government deeply wants:
To know all about anyone, regardless of terrorism, for
that was merely the pretext.
And it wishes to spy inside and outside of Great Britain, and
it wants to bar companies even from saying that they are spying
for the government.
This is THE way to dictatorial insanity, but it is also
what the British government very strongly desires.