Monday, January 04, 2021


Assange Wins. The Cost: The Crushing of Press Freedom

The labeling of dissent as mental illness cannot be seen as a victory.


by
Published on
 by
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange during a press conference at Park Plaza Hotel on October 23, 2010 in London, England related to the "Iraq War Logs." The series released at the time included leaks of American military documents, nearly 400,000 in total, included details about how the torture and the abuse of detainees by Iraqi police, was ignored by U.S. forces. Just days earlier, it was reported that the U.S. government had filed charges under the Espionage Act for Assange's work as a journalist. (Photo: D

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange during a press conference at Park Plaza Hotel on October 23, 2010 in London, England related to the "Iraq War Logs." The series released at the time included leaks of American military documents, nearly 400,000 in total, included details about how the torture and the abuse of detainees by Iraqi police, was ignored by U.S. forces. Just days earlier, it was reported that the U.S. government had filed charges under the Espionage Act for Assange's work as a journalist. (Photo: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

The unexpected decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny a US demand to extradite Julian Assange, foiling efforts to send him to a US super-max jail for the rest of his life, is a welcome legal victory, but one swamped by larger lessons that should disturb us deeply.

Those who campaigned so vigorously to keep Assange’s case in the spotlight, even as the US and UK corporate media worked so strenuously to keep it in darkness, are the heroes of the day. They made the price too steep for Baraitser or the British establishment to agree to lock Assange away indefinitely in the US for exposing its war crimes and its crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But we must not downplay the price being demanded of us for this victory.

A moment of celebration

We have contributed collectively in our various small ways to win back for Assange some degree of freedom, and hopefully a reprieve from what could be a death sentence as his health continues to deteriorate in an overcrowded Belmarsh high-security prison in London that has become a breeding ground for Covid-19.

"The personal battle for Assange won't be over until he is properly free. And even then he will be lucky if the last decade of various forms of incarceration and torture he has been subjected to do not leave him permanently traumatised, emotionally and mentally damaged, a pale shadow of the unapologetic, vigorous transparency champion he was before his ordeal began."

For this we should allow ourselves a moment of celebration. But Assange is not out of the woods yet. The US has said it will appeal the decision. And it is not yet clear whether Assange will remain jailed in the UK—possibly in Belmarsh—while many months of further legal argument about his future take place.

The US and British establishments do not care where Assange is imprisoned—be it Sweden, the UK or the US. What has been most important to them is that he continues to be locked out of sight in a cell somewhere, where his physical and mental fortitude can be destroyed and where he is effectively silenced, encouraging others to draw the lesson that there is too high a price to pay for dissent.

The personal battle for Assange won't be over until he is properly free. And even then he will be lucky if the last decade of various forms of incarceration and torture he has been subjected to do not leave him permanently traumatised, emotionally and mentally damaged, a pale shadow of the unapologetic, vigorous transparency champion he was before his ordeal began.

That alone will be a victory for the British and US establishments who were so embarrassed by, and fearful of, Wikileaks' revelations of their crimes.

Rejected on a technicality

But aside from what is a potential personal victory for Assange, assuming he doesn't lose on appeal, we should be deeply worried by the legal arguments Baraitser advanced in denying extradition.

The US demand for extradition was rejected on what was effectively a technicality. The US mass incarceration system is so obviously barbaric and depraved that, it was shown conclusively by experts at the hearings back in September, Assange would be at grave risk of committing suicide should he become another victim of its super-max jails.

One should not also discard another of the British establishment's likely considerations: that in a few days Donald Trump will be gone from the White House and a new US administration will take his place.

There is no reason to be sentimental about president-elect Joe Biden. He is a big fan of mass incarceration too, and he will be no more of a friend to dissident media, whistleblowers and journalism that challenges the national security state than was his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. Which is no friend at all.

"Keep an eye on whether the new Biden administration decides to drop the appeal case. More likely his officials will let it rumble on, largely below the media's radar, for many months more."

But Biden probably doesn't need the Assange case hanging over his head, becoming a rallying cry against him, an uncomfortable residue of the Trump administration's authoritarian instincts that his own officials would be forced to defend.

It would be nice to imagine that the British legal, judicial and political establishments grew a backbone in ruling against extradition. The far more likely truth is that they sounded out the incoming Biden team and received permission to forgo an immediate ruling in favour of extradition—on a technicality.

Keep an eye on whether the new Biden administration decides to drop the appeal case. More likely his officials will let it rumble on, largely below the media's radar, for many months more.

Journalism as espionage

Significantly, Judge Baraitser backed all the Trump administration's main legal arguments for extradition, even though they were comprehensively demolished by Assange's lawyers.

Baraitser accepted the US government's dangerous new definition of investigative journalism as "espionage," and implied that Assange had also broken Britain's draconian Official Secrets Act in exposing government war crimes.

She agreed that the 2007 Extradition Treaty applies in Assange's case, ignoring the treaty's actual words that exempt political cases like his. She thereby opened the door for other journalists to be seized in their home countries and renditioned to the US.

Baraitser accepted that protecting sources in the digital age—as Assange did for whistleblower Chelsea Manning, an essential obligation on journalists in a free society—now amounts to criminal "hacking." She trashed free speech and press freedom rights, saying they did not provide "unfettered discretion by Mr Assange to decide what he's going to publish."

She appeared to approve of the ample evidence showing that the US spied on Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy, both in violation of international law and his client-lawyer privilege—a breach of his most fundamental legal rights that alone should have halted proceedings.

Baraitser argued that Assange would receive a fair trial in the US, even though it was almost certain to take place in the eastern district of Virginia, where the major US security and intelligence services are headquartered. Any jury there would be dominated by US security personnel and their families, who would have no sympathy for Assange.

So as we celebrate this ruling for Assange, we must also loudly denounce it as an attack on press freedom, as an attack on our hard-won collective freedoms, and as an attack on our efforts to hold the US and UK establishments accountable for riding roughshod over the values, principles and laws they themselves profess to uphold.

Even as we are offered with one hand a small prize in Assange's current legal victory, the establishment's other hand seizes much more from us.

Vilification continues

There is a final lesson from the Assange ruling. The last decade has been about discrediting, disgracing and demonising Assange. This ruling should very much be seen as a continuation of that process.

"The last decade has been about discrediting, disgracing and demonising Assange. This ruling should very much be seen as a continuation of that process."

Baraitser has denied extradition only on the grounds of Assange’s mental health and his autism, and the fact that he is a suicide risk. In other words, the principled arguments for freeing Assange have been decisively rejected.

If he regains his freedom, it will be solely because he has been characterised as mentally unsound. That will be used to discredit not just Assange, but the cause for which he fought, the Wikileaks organisation he helped to found, and all wider dissidence from establishment narratives. This idea will settle into popular public discourse unless we challenge such a presentation at every turn.

Assange's battle to defend our freedoms, to defend those in far-off lands whom we bomb at will in the promotion of the selfish interests of a western elite, was not autistic or evidence of mental illness. His struggle to make our societies fairer, to hold the powerful to account for their actions, was not evidence of dysfunction. It is a duty we all share to make our politics less corrupt, our legal systems more transparent, our media less dishonest.

Unless far more of us fight for these values—for real sanity, not the perverse, unsustainable, suicidal interests of our leaders—we are doomed. Assange showed us how we can free ourselves and our societies. It is incumbent on the rest of us to continue his fight.

Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include: "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (2008) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair "(2008). His website is here.

Posted by at No comments:

Threat to Journalism Remains, Warn Critics, After Assange Extradition Rejected Solely Due to Brutal US Prison System

"That a British court has ruled that the U.S. prison system is too barbaric to guarantee the safety of Assange tells its own story. But this is about something much bigger than Assange: it's about journalism, the free press, and...  the ability to expose atrocities committed by the world's last remaining superpower."


by
by

Julian Assange's partner Stella Moris speaks to the media outside the

Old Bailey on January 4, 2021 in London.

 (Photo: Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images)

Why did a British judge reject the Trump administration's attempt to extradite Julian Assange, despite accepting "virtually all of the allegations" the U.S. government leveled against the WikiLeaks founder?

The answer lies not in the dire threat extradition would pose to press freedoms across the globe, but in the dangerous abomination that is the U.S. prison system.

In her 132-page ruling (pdf) issued Monday, Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates' Court on Monday described the conditions Assange would face in the U.S. as "harsh" even compared to London's notorious maximum-security Belmarsh jail, where the publisher has been held since April of 2019.

"The one fact that swayed her into refusing the extradition was that the U.S. prison system is so brutal that it would increase the risk of suicide."
—John Rees, Don't Extradite Assange campaign

After dismissing arguments against extradition brought by Assange's legal team—including their warnings that the WikiLeaks founder would be denied a fair trial in the U.S.—Baraitser said (pdf) she believes that if confined to a U.S. supermax prison, "Mr. Assange's mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide."

"Faced with the conditions of near total isolation without the protective factors which limited his risk at [Her Majesty's Prison] Belmarsh, I am satisfied the procedures described by the U.S. will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide," said Baraitser, "and for this reason I have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I order his discharge."

As Shadow Proof managing editor Kevin Gosztola—who has been covering the extradition case from its inception—put it, "The United States government's mass incarceration system just lost them their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."

Lawyers for the U.S. government, which in 2019 charged Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act, said they will appeal Baraitser's decision as Assange's attorneys fight for his release on bail. If extradited to the U.S., Assange—whose health has declined precipitously in recent months due to conditions that physicians have condemned as torture—would face up to 175 years in a maximum-security prison.

The aggressive effort by U.S. authorities to extradite and punish Assange for publishing classified documents that exposed American war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan has been decried as a major threat to press freedoms everywhere, given that journalists regularly obtain and report on secret materials.

"We continue to believe that Mr. Assange was targeted for his contributions to journalism, and until the underlying issues here are addressed, other sources, journalists, and publishers remain at risk."
—Rebecca Vincent, Reporters Without Borders

While raising alarm over her dismissal of press freedom concerns, human rights groups organizations welcomed Baraitser's ruling against extradition as an important step in protecting Assange and other journalists around the world.

"Today's ruling is a huge sigh of relief for anyone who cares about press freedom," Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement. "While the judge's opinion contains many worrying assertions that disregard journalists' rights, her rejection of the Trump administration's extradition request means the U.S. government likely won't be able to obtain any precedent that would criminalize common newsgathering and publishing practices. And that is a very good thing."

After joining others in applauding the judge's decision to reject the U.S. extradition request, Rebecca Vincent of Reporters Without Borders said she has "serious concerns about the substance of the judgment."

"We disagree with the judge's assessment that this case is not politically motivated, that it's not about free speech," said Vincent. "We continue to believe that Mr. Assange was targeted for his contributions to journalism, and until the underlying issues here are addressed, other sources, journalists, and publishers remain at risk."

In a column for The Guardian on Monday, Owen Jones wrote that "it is not to critique the soundness of Baraitser's legal judgment to argue that this was the right decision, but for the wrong reason."

"That a British court has ruled that the U.S. prison system is too barbaric to guarantee the safety of Assange tells its own story," Jones added. "But this is about something much bigger than Assange: it's about journalism, the free press, and most importantly of all, the ability to expose atrocities committed by the world's last remaining superpower."

John Rees of the U.K.'s Don't Extradite Assange campaign said Monday that "it's an incredible judgement," noting that "95% of this judge's remarks supported the prosecution."

"She said there's no public interest defense, there's no journalistic defense, there's no political opinion defense," said Rees. "The one fact that swayed her into refusing the extradition was that the U.S. prison system is so brutal that it would increase the risk of suicide, and she wasn't willing to put him into an oppressive prison system."

Noting that the U.S. will appeal, Rees argued Monday's ruling marks "the beginning of the fight, not the end of the fight."

"But it's a terrific day," Rees added. "And if the bail application—which they're discussing inside the court right at this moment—goes through and Julian walks free, that will be a terrific watershed in this case."

Speaking to the media Monday, Stella Moris, Assange's partner, expressed a similar sentiment, calling the ruling "the first step towards justice in this case."

"As long as Julian has to endure suffering and isolation as an unconvicted prisoner in Belmarsh Prison, and as long as our children continue to be bereft of their father's love and affection, we cannot celebrate," said Moris. "We will celebrate the day he comes home."

"We are pleased that the court has recognized the seriousness and inhumanity of what he has endured and what he faces. But let's not forget: the indictment in the U.S. has not been dropped," Moris added. "It continues to want to punish Julian, and make him disappear into the deepest, darkest hole of the U.S. prison system for the rest of his life. That can never happen. We will never accept that journalism is a crime in this country or any other."

Watch:

Nils Muižnieks, Amnesty International's Europe director, said in a statement Monday morning that "we welcome the fact that Julian Assange will not be sent to the USA and that the court acknowledged that due to his health concerns, he would be at risk of ill-treatment in the U.S. prison system."

"But the charges against him should never have been brought in the first place," added Muižnieks. "The fact that the ruling is correct and saves Assange from extradition does not absolve the U.K. from having engaged in this politically-motivated process at the behest of the USA and putting media freedom and freedom of expression on trial. It has set a terrible precedent for which the U.S. is responsible and the U.K. government is complicit."

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) deputy executive director Robert Mahoney echoed Muižnieks, saying in a statement that the U.S. government's "decision to charge the WikiLeaks founder set a harmful legal precedent for the prosecution of journalists around the world simply for interacting with their sources."

"We urge the U.S. Department of Justice to refrain from further pursuing extradition through appeals and to drop all charges against Assange," said Mahoney.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. 
Posted by at No comments:
UPDATED

'A Huge Relief': British Judge Rejects Trump Administration Attempt to Extradite Julian Assange

"Let this be the end of it," said whistleblower Edward Snowden.

by Jake Johnson, staff writer


"The decision was based on the U.S. prison system being so awful and repressive that Assange would be at significant suicide risk," noted Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. (Photo: Claire Doherty/Getty Images)

This is a breaking news story... Check back for updates...

A British judge early Monday rejected the Trump administration's attempt to extradite Julian Assange to the United States, citing the risk such a move would pose to the WikiLeaks founder and publisher's life.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates' Court warned that extradition "would be oppressive by reason of Assange's mental health" and said the risk of the publisher committing suicide in a U.S. prison would be "substantial."

"Wow. The decision was based on the U.S. prison system being so awful and repressive that Assange would be at significant suicide risk," tweeted Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF).

This is one thing Americans should really reflect on. The British are as authoritarian as it gets in W. Europe, deeply subservient to the US. Yet this is the third time they're refused to extradite on the grounds that the US prison system is barbaric:pic.twitter.com/ZDqLT2McB7
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 4, 2021

The U.S. is expected to appeal the ruling (pdf). Pending U.S. appeal, Assange's lawyers are asking that he be released on bail from London's notorious Belmarsh prison, where the WikiLeaks founder has been detained since 2019.

While the judge did not reject the U.S. request due to the threat extradition would pose to press freedoms, advocates nevertheless celebrated the judge's decision as "a huge relief to anyone who cares about the rights of journalists."

If extradited to the U.S., Assange would face a sentence of up to 175 years in prison for publishing classified documents—something journalists do all the time.

"The case against Julian Assange is the most dangerous threat to U.S. press freedom in decades," noted FPF. "The extradition request was not decided on press freedom grounds; rather, the judge essentially ruled the U.S. prison system was too repressive to extradite. However, the result will protect journalists everywhere."

In response to Baraitser's decision, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted simply, "Let this be the end of it."

Julian Assange Has Been Offered Asylum In One Of The Most Dangerous Countries For Free Speech

A British judge rejected the US’s request for Assange’s extradition. Now Mexico has stepped in.

Karla Zabludovsky BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on January 4, 2021

Henry Nicholls / Reuters
Julian Assange leaves court in London after being sentenced on May 1, 2019.


MEXICO CITY — Mexico has offered political asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange shortly after the US’s request to extradite him was rejected by a judge in the UK.

“It is a triumph of justice. I celebrate that England acted in this way because Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance,” Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said as he made his offer.

On Monday, a British judge ruled that Assange, who faces 17 espionage charges, would be at risk of killing himself if he were placed in isolation in a US prison given the state of his mental health. The Department of Justice said it would continue to seek his extradition to the US.

Vanessa Baraitser, a district judge in England, rejected arguments by Assange’s lawyers — that the charges were an attack on press freedom and politically motivated — and accepted the US's claim that his alleged activities did not count as journalism. The judge based her ruling on medical evidence about his mental health: “The overall impression is of a depressed and sometimes despairing man, who is genuinely fearful about his future. I find that the mental condition of Mr Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America,” she concluded.

Baraitser referenced Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death in prison as evidence that it's not feasible to prevent suicides in US prisons. She also noted that Assange’s diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder could cause him to kill himself with “single minded determination.”

In the US, prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one charge of computer misuse over the publication on WikiLeaks of military and diplomatic documents, which carry a sentence of up to 175 years in prison.

Assange’s legal team announced that it would make a new appeal for his release from prison in the UK, citing COVID-19 rates at the high-security prison where he is being held.

In 2010, Swedish authorities requested Assange's arrest after two women accused him of rape and sexual assault. The UK arrested Assange, but he jumped bail in 2012, seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy. In April 2019, Ecuador expelled him from the embassy, and he was arrested and sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for jumping bail. In November, Sweden dropped the charges against him, saying that the evidence it had found was not strong enough to support an indictment.

López Obrador’s announcement was seen by many in Mexico as ironic. His government has been criticized for its harsh treatment of asylum-seekers from neighboring crime-ridden countries in Central America, as well as for the president’s frequent and hostile tirades against journalists, which have included comparing them to criminal gangs. Mexico is the most dangerous country for journalists in the Western Hemisphere, according to the New York–based Committee to Protect Journalists.

His offer to Assange is likely to irritate the incoming US administration, especially after López Obrador’s initial refusal to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden after his win. In his eventual letter to Biden, López Obrador issued an implicit warning against any involvement in Mexico’s internal affairs.

If Assange, 49, is able to take up Mexico’s offer of political asylum, he will land in a country struggling to control the pandemic. Mexico has the fourth-highest rate of deaths in the world, and its capital city is currently in lockdown as its hospitals, virtually out of beds, is bracing for a postholiday surge of patients.

But Assange will find an unlikely ally in the Mexican president.

“We will give him protection,” López Obrador promised.

Mexico's Lopez Obrador Wants to Give Asylum to Julian Assange

"Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance," the Mexican president said Monday.

by Andrea Germanos, staff writer COMMON DREAMS

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador speaks at a press conference in Mexico City on Dec. 8, 2020. (Photo: by Francisco Canedo/Xinhua via Getty Images)

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador on Monday called a U.K. judge's decision not to extradite Julian Assange to the United States "a triumph of justice" and said his country would offer the WikiLeaks founder political asylum.

"Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance," López Obrador, or AMLO as he is frequently called, said at a press conference Monday. The president said that he's in favor of a pardon for Assange, who's been at the maximum-security Belmarsh prison in London since April 2019 and faces 17 counts of violated the Espionage Act.

"I'm going to ask the foreign minister... to ask the U.K. government about the possibility that Mr. Assange go free and that Mexico offer him political asylum," said López Obrador, pointing to "our tradition, which is protection." The asylum offer, he added, would be on the condition that Assange not "interfere in the political affairs of any country."


Mexico's President AMLO announces that Mexico is offering political asylum to Julian Assange, citing not only Mexico's tradition of protecting people from political persecution but also its "responsibility" to do so. https://t.co/3SfM4rEBSi

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 4, 2021

The asylum offer came the same day Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates' Court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to extradite Assange. Her decision was based not on press freedom grounds but a "substantial" risk Assange would commit suicide in the face of the American incarceration system's harsh conditions.

"Faced with the conditions of near total isolation without the protective factors which limited his risk at Belmarsh, I am satisfied the procedures described by the U.S. will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide," said Baraitser, "and for this reason I have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I order his discharge." 

Lopez Obrador has previously spoken out about Assange's plight and previously called Assange's treatment in the London prison torturous.

The president's comment about his country's "tradition" of granting protection is well-grounded. In an op-ed last month at the Washington Post, historian Debbie Sharnak pointed to Mexico's asylum offer to former leftist Bolivian leader Evo Morales. She wrote, in part:

For decades, Mexico has served as a place of asylum for exiles, and this history has become embedded in the fabric of Mexican politics and identity. While Mexico's domestic history often involved political repression and hostility to migrants, the country has consistently projected an image of what scholars have called "revolutionary progress" through its high-profile offers of asylum to exiled leaders. Seeking to consolidate this reputation in the decades after the Mexican Revolution in the early 20th century, Mexico framed itself as a welcoming place for progressive ideas and persecuted people, a policy that has continued. [...]

López Obrador's offer of asylum to Morales is far from an aberration—and is perhaps part of a strategy to distract the public from Mexico's own treatment of migrants from Central American countries.

Mexico is also the deadliest country in the western hemisphere for journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

"When he took office in December 2018, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador pledged to take concrete steps to end violence against the press and impunity for journalist murders," the press freedom group said last month. "Yet this cycle continues unabated."

British judge blocks extradition of Julian Assange to U.S.


Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, shown leaving a London courtroom in May 2019, cannot be extradited to the United States, a British judge ruled Monday. 
File photo by Neil Hall/EPA-EFE

Jan. 4 (UPI) -- A British judge ruled Monday that WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the United States, where he faces charges for publishing official defense documents.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, in a ruling delivered at London's Old Bailey court, said Assange could not be extradited due to his risk of suicide in the U.S. penal system.

Assange, she said, is "a depressed and sometimes despairing man genuinely fearful about his future," and if extradited, would be "housed in conditions of significant isolation," hampering contact with family.

There was evidence of a risk to Assange's health if he were to face trial in the United States, Baraitser said, adding that the 49-year-old activist's risk of committing suicide appeared to be "substantial."

RELATED Assange lawyer: Trump offered pardon to reveal DNC hack source

Lawyers for the United States immediately said they would appeal the ruling.

Assange was arrested in April 2019 and has since been held in a high-security prison. He had been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, where he sought asylum to dodge sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Assange was arrested after Ecuador withdrew its offer of asylum. Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno said the country's patience for Assange had "reached its limit" after "repeated violations to international conventions and daily life."

RELATED Judge threatens to remove Assange on 2nd day of extradition hearing

Assange was indicted on 17 new charges of violating the Espionage Act in 2019 and already faced a charge from March 2018 of conspiring to commit unlawful computer intrusion, which carried a maximum five years in prison.

He was accused of working with former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain and publicly release classified information. The new charges brought his total charges to 18 counts with each violation of the Espionage Act carrying a maximum 10-year sentence.

Assange has consistently claimed he was acting as a journalist but Baraitser said earlier in extradition hearing that his receipt of thousands of classified files went beyond investigative journalism.

RELATED WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appears at extradition hearing

In her Monday ruling, the judge dismissed arguments from Assange's legal team that he couldn't be afforded protections under the U.S. Constitution, but agreed that he could not be extradited on health grounds.

Posted by at No comments:
UPDATED

 

Google Workers Form Union to 'Promote Solidarity, Democracy, and Social and Economic Justice'

The tech titan "has a responsibility to its thousands of workers and billions of users to make the world a better place," two of the union's leaders wrote. "We can help build that world." 


by

Activists held a rally during Google's annual shareholders meeting in Mountain View, California on May 14, 2014. (Photo: John Green/MediaNews Group/Bay Area News via Getty Images)

Decrying numerous policies and practices they say violate Google's "don't be evil" founding principle, more than 200 of the Silicon Valley tech giant's workers on Monday announced they are forming a union, a move that was applauded by progressive lawmakers and labor advocates nationwide. 

The Alphabet Workers Union (AWU)—named after Google's parent corporation—says it "strives to protect Alphabet workers, our global society, and our world," and to "promote solidarity, democracy, and social and economic justice." It will operate as part of the Communications Workers of America and will be open to all 120,000 of the company's employees.

"We deserve a workplace that respects us, where we can work for a fair wage without fear of abuse or discrimination. We deserve meaningful control over the projects we work on and the direction of this company."
—Parul Koul and Chewy Shaw, AWU

"For far too long, thousands of us at Google and other subsidiaries of Alphabet... have had our workplace concerns dismissed by executives," Parul Koul and Chewy Shaw, respectively AWU's chair and vice chair, wrote in a New York Times op-ed on Monday.

"Our bosses have collaborated with repressive governments around the world," Koul and Shaw said. "They have developed artificial intelligence technology for use by the Department of Defense and profited from ads by a hate group. They have failed to make the changes necessary to meaningfully address our retention issues with people of color."

"Most recently, Timnit Gebru, a leading artificial intelligence researcher and one of the few Black women in her field, said she was fired over her work to fight bias," Koul and Shaw continued. "Her offense? Conducting research that was critical of large-scale AI models and being critical of existing diversity and inclusion efforts. In response, thousands of our colleagues organized, demanding an explanation."

"Both of us have heard from colleagues—some new, some with over a decade at the company—who have decided that working at Alphabet is no longer a choice they can make in good conscience," added Koul and Shaw.

They then listed some of the successful employee activism that has borne results in recent years, including ending participation in the Project Maven AI warfare project with the Pentagon; terminating the Dragonfly censored search engine in China; winning a $15 per hour minimum wage for some subcontracted workers; and an end to forced arbitration of sexual harassment and other claims. 

Koul and Shaw stressed that Alphabet "has a responsibility to prioritize the public good. It has a responsibility to its thousands of workers and billions of users to make the world a better place."

"As Alphabet workers, we can help build that world," they wrote. 

Unionization is the exception to the rule in Silicon Valley. And unlike traditional labor unions, AWU is a so-called minority union—it represents only a small percentage of the company's 260,000-strong global workforce—that will not negotiate contracts. 

"Our goals go beyond the workplace questions of, 'Are people getting paid enough?' Our issues are going much broader," Shaw, an engineer in the San Francisco Bay Area, told the Times in a report about the new union. "It is a time where a union is an answer to these problems."

Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, called AWU a "powerful experiment."  

"If it grows—which Google will do everything they can to prevent—it could have huge impacts not just for the workers, but for the broader issues that we are all thinking about in terms of tech power in society," Dubal told the Times. 

Progressive lawmakers and labor advocates hailed Monday's announcement. 

"The time is long overdue for the workers who built Big Tech to have a voice in their workplace," said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chair of the House Labor Caucus. 

"The future of tech is stronger with the power of a union," tweeted AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Liz Shuler. "We stand in solidarity with Alphabet workers who are courageously organizing for a better future at Google!"

Yasemin Zahra, chair of Labor Against Racism and War, asserted that by unionizing, "Google workers are not just standing up to management but also Lockheed-Martin and ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ties in the company. Silicon Valley giants are military-intel contractors. Incredible!"

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Union at Google parent Alphabet seeks bigger role for workers

by Rob Lever 
JANUARY 4, 2021
A labor drive has begun at Google and its parent firm Alphabet aiming to improve conditions for contractors and give employees a bigger role in company decisions

Employees at Google and other units of parent firm Alphabet announced the creation Monday of a union, aiming for a bigger role in company decisions in a move which steps up the activism brewing in Silicon Valley giants.

The Alphabet Workers Union, affiliated with the Communications Workers of America, aims to represent well-compensated tech workers as well as temporary workers and contractors, according to a statement.

The new labor group is focusing not only on pay and benefits but also a role in ethical decisions by the tech giant and protection from allegedly arbitrary firings for activism.

"We hope to create a democratic process for workers to wield decision-making power; promote social, economic, and environmental justice; and end the unfair disparities between TVCs (temporary, vendors and contractors) and FTEs (full time employees)," the union's website said.

As of the end of December, the union had some 200 members. It will be open all employees at Google and Alphabet units including autonomous car division Waymo, connected device maker Fitbit and life sciences division Verily.

In a New York Times op-ed, the union's chair Parul Koul and vice chair Chewy Shaw said that the focus will be "to ensure that workers know what they're working on, and can do their work at a fair wage, without fear of abuse, retaliation or discrimination."

They said they would press Google on ethical decisions including in the use of artificial intelligence.

"Its motto used to be 'Don't be evil,' " they wrote "We will live by that motto."

The move comes with Google and other tech giants under heightened scrutiny by antitrust enforcers in the US and elsewhere for their growing dominance of key economic sectors.

New deal for tech?

"There is a growing techlash against the large technology companies as they are accumulating great wealth and a number of their workers are unhappy with the high cost of living in Silicon Valley, working conditions, AI ethics, and corporate decision-making," said Darrell West, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation.
Google workers held a sit-in to protest sexual harassment at the company, on May 1, 2019 at the tech giant's headquarters in Silicon Valley

"Tech employees want a greater say in what is happening and want to see greater social responsibility from the sector. This unionization drive differs from past ones from the industrial era in focusing not just on pay and benefits, but the broader role of technology in society."

Large tech firms, which offer generous compensation to software engineers and other skilled workers, have largely avoided labor drives but have faced growing unrest over workplaces issues in recent years.

At Amazon, which has tens of thousands of warehouse workers, organizing drives have focused on working conditions and safety during the pandemic.

One of the catalysts at Google was the recent firing of Timnit Gebru, a Black artificial intelligence ethics researcher and outspoken diversity activist.

The company also faced a backlash from employees over its involvement with a Pentagon project known as Project Maven, which Google eventually ended.

"This union builds upon years of courageous organizing by Google workers," said Nicki Anselmo, a Google program manager and union member.











"From... opposing Project Maven, to protesting the egregious, multimillion dollar payouts that have been given to executives who've committed sexual harassment, we've seen first-hand that Alphabet responds when we act collectively."

Google's director of people operations Kara Silverstein, said in a statement: "We've always worked hard to create a supportive and rewarding workplace for our workforce.

"Of course our employees have protected labor rights that we support. But as we've always done, we'll continue engaging directly with all our employees."

Arthur Wheaton, a researcher at Cornell University's school of industrial and labor relations, said the union could face challenges if it seeks recognition by the company, needing some 30 percent to force an election and a majority to win representation.

"Union organizing drives take a long time with no guarantees of success," Wheaton said. "US labor law is not very good for workers rights. It is tilted heavily in management's favor."

Explore further  Amazon girds for challenge in warehouse union drive

© 2021 AFP

Google employees form new union in secret
ALL WORKERS ORG.S BEGIN IN SECRET

Google employees said Monday they have formed a union, a first in Silicon Valley. 

JAN. 4, 2021 / 12:29 PM

File Photo by Mohammad Kheirkhah/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 4 (UPI) -- More than 200 Google employees have formed a union, the group said Monday, creating a credible challenge to Silicon Valley culture that has shied away from union workforces.

The new Alphabet Workers Union, to cover 225 engineers and other workers at Google's parent company, elected its leadership in secret last month and earned affiliation with the Communication Workers of America.

The CWA represents union workers in the telecommunications and media industry throughout the United States and Canada.

"This union builds upon years of courageous organizing by Google workers," Nicki Anselmo, Google's program manager said in a statement.

RELATED Nearly 40 states file antitrust lawsuit against Google

"From fighting the 'real names' policy to opposing Project Maven, to protesting the egregious, multimillion-dollar payouts that have been given to executives who've committed sexual harassment, we've seen first-hand that Alphabet responds when we act collectively.

"Our new union provides a sustainable structure to ensure that our shared values as Alphabet employees are respected even after the headlines fade."

Google issued a statement about the union's announcement, saying it supports its employees' rights to organize.

RELATED EU proposes major changes to bar unfair practices by web 'gatekeepers'

"We've always worked hard to create a supportive and rewarding workplace for our workforce," said Kara Silverstein, Google's director of people operations. "Of course, our employees have protected labor rights that we support. But as we've always done, we'll continue engaging directly with all our employees."

Dylan Baker, a Google software engineer, said the union will help the company reflect the values of its workers.

"This is historic; the first union at a major tech company by and for all tech workers," Baker said.

"We will elect representatives, we will make decisions democratically, we will pay dues, and we will hire skilled organizers to ensure all workers at Google know they can work with us if they actually want to see their company reflect their values."


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)