It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Wednesday, January 06, 2021
Germany: Catholic officials ask reporters for 'silence' on child abuse report
Reporters walked out of a press event in Cologne after church officials asked them to sign a confidentiality agreement. The officials were due to discuss issues around a key report on child abuse.
Journalists were asked to keep the contents of the report a "secret"
With the Catholic Church shaken by the child abuse scandal in Germany, journalists walked out of a press event organized by church representatives on Tuesday.
The Archdiocese of Cologne had called for a press conference to discuss an unpublished child abuse report. Specifically, church officials were to explain issues regarding the report's methodology. These issues, at least according to Cologne Archbishop Reiner Maria Woelki, were the reason for withholding the document from the public in its current form.
Church representatives said they would show journalists a redacted version of the document. They also asked reporters to sign a pledge to keep the contents "secret," including information on crimes, alleged perpetrators and implicated church officials.
"The journalist commits himself to exercise absolute silence regarding this information," the agreement read.
All eight of the journalists invited to the event refused to sign the statement. Why has the report been withheld?
Cardinal Woelki promised an independent and comprehensive investigation into sexual abuse in his diocese two years ago. However, in October 2020, victims were told the ensuing report was not "legally watertight" and contained "inadmissible prejudices."
A new version of the report is expected to be released in March.
The decision to withhold the document until its reworked has already caused backlash in Germany. The law firm which drew up the report also decried the delay.
Remember when Flint, Michigan garnered international attention becausewater in the city was making people sick? Well, there are communities like that around the county and the world. And while Flint gained attention because of its failing infrastructure, there are places where water and sewage infrastructure is absent.
"Too many Americans live without any affordable means of cleanly disposing of the waste from their toilets, and must live with the resulting filth," writes Catherine Coleman Flowers, an environmental health advocate, in her book "Waste: One Woman's Fight Against America's Dirty Secret," published by The New Press in November. (Read an excerpt here.)
"They lack what most Americans take for granted: the right to flush and forget," Flowers continues.
For nearly two decades, Flowers, a recent awardee of the MacArthur Foundation "genius grant," has been bringing attention to failing water and waste sanitation infrastructure in rural areas.
I spoke with Flowers in mid-December over Skype. Below is a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity.
Deonna Anderson: You are the woman mentioned in the title of your book, which chronicles your life and also your work as an environmental justice champion. For those who have not read the book, can you give an overview of what the "dirty secret" is in the title?
Catherine Coleman Flowers: The dirty secret is that there are many Americans living with waste that comes from their toilets, whether it is through straight piping, in which [waste from] the toilets comes straight out on top of the ground or into a pit, or whether it is through a failing septic system, which means that when it fails, there's sewage from their homes, usually from their toilets, of course. I just want to be graphic because that's what it is.
And it ends up either out on top of the ground or comes back into the home, sometimes into their bathtubs. Or they're part of these community systems that are supposed to be managed but were built in a way in which they were not sustainable. And consequently, people have sewage coming back into their homes or into their yards.
Anderson: Throughout "Waste," you write about the tours that you take people on to see all the waste and the lack of infrastructure in Lowndes County, Alabama. And that's where you grew up. First, how many people have you taken on these tours over the years?
Flowers: That's a good question... In some cases, it would be one or two people and in other cases, there may be groups. So I would say on the small number, maybe close to 100 people, at least, that I've actually taken around to see this firsthand over the years, because I've been doing this since 2002.
Catherine Coleman Flowers guides Senator Cory Booker through Lowndes County, Alabama, as part of his 2017 environmental justice tour. Photo courtesy of Catherine Coleman Flowers.
Anderson: What has been the tangible impact of people going to see what happens in Lowndes County?
Flowers: Well, first of all, this is not on a lot of people's radar. When I wanted to talk about this before, I couldn't get media interest. I was told that this was not sexy, nobody would be interested in it. But since that time, I've had the opportunity to speak before Congress, active members of Congress, the Senate, who've actually come to Lowndes County to see for themselves and have been working on policies to try to address this issue in rural communities.
I had the opportunity to visit Geneva, because the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty came to Lowndes County and made it a major global issue. The first real coverage we get from it from a newspaper actually came from The Guardian. So now there are other people that are interested as well.
And the fact that I can even write a book about it. ... I'm thankful to The New Press for giving me an opportunity to tell this story. I'm excited that we have seen and have heard from people from around the country that are indeed interested in knowing about this, and also people that are interested in what the potential solutions are.
Anderson: That's actually a really good segue to my next question. Towards the end of the book, you talk about how solutions haven't really come fast enough. And I'm curious if there's anything that you hope happens in the next year or so, to address the sanitation issue in rural communities all over the country?
Flowers: I think the first thing that should happen within the next year is to find out how many people are impacted, because we're not going to have any real solutions until we really know how many people are impacted by this. Because I think for some people, a solution is to go to a place like Lowndes County, put in a few septic systems and say, "Problem solved."
The problem is not solved. And whatever systems are put in place have to be monitored — because of climate change, a lot of them simply are not working. And then we're going to see what we've already seen: the failing septic systems, which exist around U.S. It's not just in in Lowndes County.
We could develop a vaccine for the coronavirus in less than a year. Just imagine what we could do if we put that same type of know-how and ingenuity behind coming up with some real wastewater solutions.
The first thing is trying to quantify how many people are impacted by this and where they're located. So when we talk about solutions, we're talking about getting solutions to all the people that are impacted by it. Then the second thing that I'd like to see within the next year, is to actually to have the work on the type of innovation that's needed to have long-term solutions to this problem, because obviously, it doesn't exist. If it existed, everybody would have it, or they could go buy it and it's not available. So we need to find something that's sustainable, that takes into account climate change, and also is affordable so that we can that people could maintain it if they have to.
What I envision is within the next five years coming up with a system that treats wastewater to drinking water quality that can be done on a household level. Because we're going to have to talk about how we rebuild differently, and how we build differently. And as people have to move away from the coasts, and they move into these unincorporated areas, or they move into these areas where they don't have big pipe systems, or have systems that are failing, we have to have something to be able to address that. And I think in terms of being forward thinking, we have to start working on that technology now.
And I believe that it's possible because we could develop a vaccine for the coronavirus in less than a year. Just imagine what we could do if we put that same type of know-how and ingenuity behind coming up with some real wastewater solutions that reuse and reclaim.
Anderson: A few weeks ago, you were in conversation with Khaliah Ali Wertheimer. During your conversation, you mentioned how you would love for more rural communities to be included in conversations related to the Green New Deal. And I'm curious if you can share why it's an important thing to include rural communities in these conversations?
Flowers: I think oftentimes what we do — and it's unintentional — is we frame our solutions or our conversations with an urban perspective that inadvertently is biased against rural communities. It leaves them out, when in fact, people in rural communities probably saw climate change before the people in the cities did, and may also have some type of knowledge about the solutions, and especially if we're going to talk about agricultural solutions, solutions around soil. People in rural communities, especially [those] living in these agricultural communities that are very close to the soil, have some understanding that a lot of people don't have because they have to pay attention to the natural elements in order to be successful in those environments.
And I think, also, there are some common sense solutions that can come from rural communities. When we talk about green infrastructure, of course, we talk rightfully so about transportation systems that will move large amounts of people from one place to the other. And we talk about the grid and how the grid could connect cities.
What I envision is within the next 5 years coming up with a system that treats wastewater to drinking water quality that can be done on a household level.
But we need to connect those places in between as well, because even right now, a lot of people don't have access to broadband and internet services. There are some parts of the country, especially in rural communities, where people's cell phones might not work, because there aren't cell towers nearby. So all of these kinds of things that we just assume that everybody has is not true. That's why I believe that people from rural communities should be part of any discussion that we have about a Green New Deal and green infrastructure. They can also inform that conversation and how we get [resources] to those areas that have been left behind from what we currently have. We don't need to keep skipping over these communities.
Anderson: I'm curious if there has been any legislation over the years that has really helped improve the lives of rural communities that you can think of. And can you paint the picture of what the ideal would be when it comes to making sure that rural communities are thought about in conversations about climate change?
Flowers: I haven't really done a deep dive search but with the legislation that I have seen, I haven't seen what I think is the model yet. I think in order to have a model, it would involve going into these communities and having people that are experiencing these problems sitting at the table and helping to draft the legislation because oftentimes, people are well intentioned and want to do it, and I applaud them for that, but you can't do that by just visiting for a day and thinking you have the answer.
It's unintentional — we frame our solutions or we frame our conversations with an urban perspective that inadvertently is biased against rural communities.
Using the principles of environmental justice, that means having the people in the community sitting at the table — not having a top-down approach. The top-down approaches, as we know, have failed. That's why we have this problem. That's why we're having this discussion. The model includes using the principles of environmental justice — and letting the people in the community be part of designing the policy to address these issues — because sometimes even the language in the policies get in the way — for example, language such as "town," when a lot of these areas are unincorporated. There are no towns. Or putting in a limit or a minimum of 500 or more people. What does that do? Exclude the smaller towns or the smaller communities who may not be part of the town. And I think that's one of the reasons that we have the problem that we have.
It's something that I call a rural lexicon and what the rural lexicon is is understanding the language of rural communities, so that when we write policy, it is not always written from an urban perspective. I'm not saying that urban communities should not have access to services. They should, but we should all have access to services, whether rural or urban.
Anderson: When I was listening to you talk, it reminded me that when solutions to issues are dreamed up and implemented, the people doing the work need to be deeply embedded with the communities in which they're working in order to really understand and make sure that everyone is included. With that in mind and because the GreenBiz audience is mostly corporate sustainability people, I'm curious about how companies can help rural communities and support organizations like yours.
Flowers: Companies come with expertise that we don't have and they can also help expand our capacity — and they can contribute to organizations like ours, so that we can do the work. Some of them can serve as board members; some can serve as advisers. They can host seminars to educate their staff about these issues. Some of them could also visit as well, when it's feasible to visit again. And certainly there are services that they offer that people in rural communities want as well.
In some cases, some of these smaller areas cannot have sustainability offices. Wouldn't it be great if some of these companies will partner with communities that don't have that? They can actually go in and help them develop more sustainable practices in those communities. There are lots of things that can be done and I'm sure if you talk to somebody else from a rural community, that they would have other ideas.
I used to teach social studies so I remember teaching state and local government and history, and we know that there are three branches of government. We know that there are some other unofficial branches of government like the media, but I think the business community plays a key role as well. And the business community can be very helpful in states and pushing for the state governments to not leave out rural communities and to make sure that there's infrastructure in place for these rural communities.
Companies come with expertise that we don't have and they can also help expand our capacity — and they can contribute to organizations like ours, so that we can do the work.
When I was an economic development coordinator, I couldn't recruit a lot of businesses to Lowndes County because they require certain things that we did not have in terms of just basic infrastructure. By pushing for those things to happen, and pushing for states to provide the infrastructure, not just in the places that already have it but also in places that need it, that can go a long way.
Anderson: Now that your book is out in the world, what is the life you hope the book has? What do you hope the people who read the book take away from it and put to action?
Flowers: The first thing I want them to do is to read the book. And then the second thing I want them to do is not just look at Lowndes County. Look in their own communities, look in their own states. Throughout the United States, there's this problem — United States and U.S. territories. So look at those areas and help us to identify where those areas are and what those problems are so together we can come up with a solution.
That's what I'm asking people to do because a lot of people want to come to Lowndes County. You're passing by situations in your own state and that's not helpful. What we need to do is make sure that everybody gets help, and that people are not left behind. I ultimately hope that what will come of this book, or at least writing and telling the story, is that we'll be able to look back and say this was the impetus to end this problem in the United States of America, and potentially globally.
Mitt Romney Heckled As A ‘Traitor’ At The Airport And Inflight To DC
On Tuesday Senator Mitt Romney was flying from Salt Lake City to Washington DC on Delta – along with a plane loaded with passengers heading to the nation’s Capitol to support Donald Trump in advance of Congressional counting of electoral votes which will formalize Joe Biden as the next President.
Romney – who has said he did not vote for Trump’s re-election – has opposed efforts by some colleagues to attempt to dispute the results of the Presidential election.
In the Salt Lake City airport, a maskless woman came up to him. Before she could accost him he told her to put on her mask noting it’s a legal requirement. She said “Don’t tell me what to do” but then she did it anyway, and then asked why he isn’t supporting Trump. He said he does support the President “in things I agree with.” He wouldn’t go along with her request to support Trump’s challenge to “fraudulent votes.”
Romney responded,
We have a Constitution and the constitutional process is clear and I will follow the Constitution, and then I will explain all that when we meet in Congress.
Onboard a female passenger told a group of Trump supporters to tell Romney “what we think” and the group responded, calling him “Traitor! Traitor! Traitor!” along with “Resign Mitt!”
Another man nearby told him “Your legacy is nothing” while the original woman shouted “You’re a joke, absolute joke.” Another demanded “We want to know your connection to Burisma,” the Ukrainian company on whose board Joe Biden’s son sat.
A Delta flight attendant made an announcement for passengers to sit down and clear the aisle.
Mitt Romney frequently stands on principle, it’s just that those principles keep changing. He was pro-choice as Governor of Massachusetts, then he ran for President. He instituted Romeny-care, very similar to Obamacare, but then campaigned on repealing Obamacare. He condemned Donald Trump during the primaries in advance of the 2016 Presidential election, but then sat down with Trump as a Secretary of State posting was dangled in front of him. Running for Senate he offered ‘targeted praise’ of the President before turning into a critic, with six years until any re-election. In other words he’s a politician.
And Joe Biden was probably elected because in swing states people were reading for a return to a normal politician.
Last updated on January 6, 2021, at 12:55 a.m. ET Posted on January 5, 2021, at 11:17 p.m. ET Megan Varner / Getty Images Rev. Raphael Warnock meets with supporters on Jan. 5 in Marietta, Georgia.
Rev. Raphael Warnock, the pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, defeated Georgia Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler in a historic runoff election in a state that has been a conservative stronghold for decades.
Decision Desk HQ projected Warnock as the race's winner just after 11 p.m. ET on Tuesday night.
Warnock is the first Black person elected to represent Georgia in the Senate and will be only one of three Black people in the Senate once his term begins. His victory is a testament to the decadeslong political organizing of Black women in Georgia, coming just two months after President-elect Joe Biden beat Trump in the state — the first Democrat to win a presidential race there since 1992.
His win brings Democrats to the cusp of total control of Congress. The party now has at least 49 seats in the Senate. If Democrat Jon Ossoff defeats Republican David Perdue in the state’s other runoff race, Democrats will have 50 seats and tiebreaking control once Vice President–elect Kamala Harris is in office.
Warnock will serve in the seat until 2022 and will be up for reelection during the 2022 midterms.
He declared victory in short remarks broadcast online after midnight Wednesday. Recounting his upbringing in coastal Georgia, Warnock recalled that his mother picked “someone else’s cotton” while he was growing up and now she had gone to the polls to pick her son to become a US senator.
“We were told that we couldn’t win this election, but tonight we proved that with hope, hard work, and with the people by our side anything is possible,” Warnock said. “Georgia, I am honored by the faith you’ve shown in me. I promise you this tonight, I’m going to the Senate to work for all of Georgia.”
Loeffler, in comments soon before Warnock's, did not concede the race, saying that votes still needed to be counted.
His win came in a critical election in the post-Trump era — it tested the limits of Trumpism and if the president’s predilection for chaos and misinformation could work for other Republicans. Would Trump loyalists be motivated to vote in an election where Trump wasn’t on the ballot? Or in one where the candidates he was supporting did not reflect his brand of populism? Would they have faith in the country’s election systems after the president spent two months spreading lies about Georgia’s voting system being rigged against him and attacking establishment Republicans? The questions are not yet fully answered, but Warnock's win helps to bring the limits of the current Republican Party into focus
Warnock has served as the senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church since 2005 and often referred to scripture and religious teachings on the campaign trail. Warnock got an early boost out of a crowded field of Democrats from WNBA players who were looking to rebuke Loeffler. As a co-owner of the Atlanta Dream basketball team, Loeffler had been in a public fight with players over their political activism in support of Black Lives Matter.
Warnock, the only Black candidate in the race, faced a majority of the attacks from Republicans throughout the campaign. Loeffler spent much of the campaign labeling Warnock as a “radical” and a “socialist” and tried to tie his campaign to the "defund the police" movement that emerged from the summer of protests following the police killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. During the only debate of the runoff, Warnock told voters that he did not support defunding the police.
Loeffler often pointed to Warnock’s sermons as the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, the spiritual home of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., in attack ads and on the campaign trail. After Loeffler’s attacks on Warnock that centered around his sermons, a group of 100 religious leaders demanded that Loeffler stop her campaign’s “false characterizations of Reverend Warnock.”
The leaders said that they saw Loeffler’s attacks against Warnock as a “broader attack against the Black Church and faith traditions for which we stand.”
Warnock spent a majority of the campaign refuting Loeffler’s attacks against him in ads that featured him cuddling the dogs of his supporters. He also spent his time on the campaign trail speaking about the racial inequality that the pandemic and the government’s response to it had exposed. He often scrutinized Loeffler’s stock trading following closed-door briefings in the early days of the pandemic and the delayed coronavirus relief aid, but largely left going on the offensive against Loeffler up to Ossoff.
In a widely shared clip in the final days of the race, Ossoff told a Fox News crew in a live interview that Loeffler had been photographed on the campaign trail with a former Ku Klux Klan member — resurfacing a photo of Loeffler with a man who had been arrested in the ‘90s for assaulting a Black man in Maryland and other photos of Loeffler with white supremacists. Loeffler had previously denied knowing who the man was and denounced “all forms of hate.”
Democrats across the country intensely focused on the races in the weeks leading up to the election, with a result that could determine the first years of Joe Biden’s presidency. Progressive groups like the Working Families Party and the Sunrise Movement promoted Warnock’s campaign in their canvassing operations, hoping his win could lead to the enactment of progressive priorities along with a Democratic Senate.
FINALLY SOMEBODY CALLS IT
Democrat Jon Ossoff Has Defeated Republican David Perdue, Giving Democrats A Stunning Sweep Across Georgia’s Senate Races
Democrats won both of Georgia’s runoff races, giving them control of the Senate and a road map for future success powered by Black organizers.
Ryan Brooks NBuzzFeed News Reporter Posted on January 6, 2021 Paras Griffin / Getty Images Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock greet each other onstage during a rally at New Birth Church on Dec. 28, 2020, in Stonecrest, Georgia.
Democrat Jon Ossoff won his tight Senate race, with both Georgia Democrats defeating their Republican runoff opponents in historic victories for a stunning rebuke of President Donald Trump in a state that had been a Republican stronghold for years. With Ossoff joining Democrat Raphael Warnock in the Senate, their party will be able to take total control of Congress.
Warnock is the first Black person elected to represent Georgia in the Senate and will be one of only three Black people in the Senate once his term begins. Ossoff, 33, would be the youngest member of the Senate.
The results are a testament to the decadeslong political organizing of Black women in Georgia who worked toward expanding the electorate and protecting voting rights in the state.
“It is with humility that I thank the people of Georgia for electing me to serve you in the United States Senate. Thank you for the trust that you have placed in me,” Ossoff said in a video streamed online on Wednesday morning. Hours before, the campaign of his opponent, Sen. David Perdue, said it “will require time and transparency to be certain the results are fair and accurate.”
It is a close race. Decision Desk HQ has projected Ossoff will win. The vote-counting firm currently has Ossoff leading Republican Perdue by about 0.4% of the vote — about 16,000 votes — which is within the 0.5% threshold that allows Perdue to call for a recount. Georgia officials will continue counting the few remaining votes today, which are expected in areas that lean Democrat.
Ossoff’s win would push the Senate into a 50-50 split, with Vice President–elect Kamala Harris serving as a tiebreaking vote. The split would effectively give Democrats control of the Senate, removing the chamber from Sen. Mitch McConnell’s iron grip and dramatically expanding the possibilities for President-elect Joe Biden’s first years in office.
A litany of Black women-led voter registration groups like Stacey Abrams’ New Georgia Project and Black Voters Matter fanned out across the state in recent years to register new voters and protect voters from being purged from rolls. In the weeks ahead of the runoff, Progressive grassroots groups organizing across the state made the shift toward door-knocking and in-person canvassing after the party largely avoided the strategy during the general election because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Trump, on the other hand, spent the intervening two months claiming Georgia’s election was rigged against him — it was not, as the state’s Republican elected leaders frequently reminded him — attacking establishment Republicans in the state, and undermining the Republican base’s faith in the electoral process, and pushing lawsuits that largely focused on invalidating votes in majority Black cities. Perdue and Loeffler, then both serving in the Senate, often echoed Trump’s false claims about election fraud on the campaign trail, and in the final days of the race, they announced that they would support senators who objected to certifying the Electoral College results.
The runoff was defined by Trump’s meddling in the state’s election results after his loss in November and his failed last-ditch attempt to get more direct aid to people in the coronavirus relief package that passed Congress in December.
Ossoff and Warnock both spent the weeks in the lead up to the race hammering Perdue and Loeffler over the delayed coronavirus relief package that had stalled in Congress for months and for their stock trading during their time in the Senate.
The two Democratic challengers consistently pushed Loeffler and Perdue to support larger direct payments for eligible Americans as the pandemic surged in December. In the final weeks of the race, the two Republican senators touted the latest coronavirus relief package, which Trump then briefly refused to sign as he unsuccessfully called on Congress to increase direct payments to $2,000. Ossoff and Warnock, who supported the higher payments, pummeled the Republicans for their failure to actually make them a reality.
Ossoff, an executive of an investigative documentary production company and former aide to Rep. Hank Johnson, gained national attention in 2017 when he ran against Republican Karen Handel in a special election for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District which was seen as the first referendum on Trump’s presidency. Ossoff lost the 2017 race to Handel by 3.8%.
Warnock has served as the senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church since 2005 and often referred to scripture and religious teachings on the campaign trail. Warnock got an early boost out of a crowded field of Democrats from WNBA players who were looking to rebuke Loeffler. As a co-owner of the Atlanta Dream basketball team, Loeffler had been in a public fight with players over their political activism in support of Black Lives Matter.
The Democratic wins in a state where Republicans have typically dominated in statewide elections offer the Democratic Party a road map for building in the South and changing the electoral map for years to come.
WATCH: CN Live!—‘Freedom Denied’ with Roger Waters and John Pilger
January 6, 2021
10 am EST, 3 pm GMT: WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange was denied bail on Wednesday and sent back to Belmarsh prison on remand pending U.S. appeals, two days after his extradition to the U,S, was blocked on health grounds.
Join Roger Waters and John Pilger and your hosts Elizabeth Vos and Joe Lauria as they discussed Wednesday’s decision in Westminster Magistrate Court to deny Julian Assange bail right here:
UK: Assange extradition refusal welcome, but UK complicit in setting 'terrible precedent'
‘The UK government should never have so willingly assisted the US in its unrelenting pursuit of Assange’ - Nils Muižnieks, AI
Responding to the decision by the Magistrate’s Court in London not to approve the extradition of Julian Assange to the US where he would face a risk of ill-treatment in prison, Nils Muižnieks, Amnesty International’s Europe Director, said:
“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 US prison system.
“But the charges against him should never have been brought in the first place. The charges were politically-motivated, and the UK government should never have so willingly assisted the US in its unrelenting pursuit of Assange.
“The fact that the ruling is correct and saves Assange from extradition, does not absolve the UK 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 US is responsible and the UK government is complicit."
Risk of prolonged solitary confinement
The US extradition request is based on charges directly related to the publication of leaked classified documents as part of Assange’s work with WikiLeaks. Publishing such information is a cornerstone of media freedom and the public's right to information about government wrongdoing. Publishing information in the public interest is protected under international human rights law and should not be criminalised.
If extradited to the US, Julian Assange could have faced trial on 18 charges - 17 under the Espionage Act, and one under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He would also have faced a real risk of serious human rights violations due to detention conditions that could amount to torture or other ill-treatment, including prolonged solitary confinement.
Julian Assange is the first publisher to face charges under the Espionage Act.
As Judge Vanessa Baraitser started to deliver her ruling in the Old Bailey’s number two court yesterday, nothing felt right. In this file photo Wikileaks founder Julian Assange speaks on the balcony of the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Credit: Justin Tallis/AFP
05 January 2021
Proceedings started late. Julian Assange slumped in the dock, surrounded by bullet-proof glass, his clothes flapping slightly around his diminished frame. The ‘Don’t Extradite Assange’ campaign had decided against a rally outside the court building because of the risk of spreading covid. The very air tasted sour.
As Baraitser intoned her summary judgement, the atmosphere deteriorated. She dismissed the defence case unequivocally, point by point. The protection of those accused of political offences implied by the US/UK Extradition Treaty was worthless in this case. Assange is accused of actions that would be offences in the UK, she told the court. His actions could not be compared to those of an investigative journalist and by dumping data he had adversely affected scores of US contacts.
She declined to consider the uncontested evidence that CIA contacts bugged the Ecuadorian Embassy to snoop on Assange’s meetings with lawyers. And she found ample evidence that a fair trial would be available, once the Wikileaks founder arrived in Virginia.
By now, Assange appeared to be deflating in the dock before our eyes. One sensed a great weight pressing on the usually ebullient shoulders of Edward Fitzgerald QC, who leads Assange’s legal team.
Baraitser’s cautious delivery continued as she reached her conclusion, providing no prompt of a change in her direction of travel.
In September the extradition hearing spent a week considering medical evidence relating to Assange. Much of it was harrowing and, unlike all the other expert statements, written copies were not released to the media – despite formal protests.
Baraitser, however, accepted most of the doctors’ and psychiatrists’ conclusions. Assange has a personal and family history of suicide attempts, he suffers deep, long-term depression. He also has Autism spectrum disorders. These have been managed with some success in HMP Belmarsh, the judge told the court.
Then she turned to conditions in the US ‘supermax’ prison, ADX Colorado, where it is generally accepted Assange would have been sent, if he had been sentenced by a US court.
“Faced with the conditions of near total isolation… I am satisfied the procedures described by the US will not prevent Mr Assange from finding a way to commit suicide and for this reason I have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I order his discharge”,
The air in court felt suddenly lighter. A broad smile flashed across Assange’s face, and the handful of Wikileaks staff in court were animated anew.
Clair Dobbin, the barrister representing the US government, was quick to her feet, insisting that an appeal against the ruling would be immediately forthcoming. Her interjections are always highly controlled, but anger apparently underscored her words. Edward Fitzgerald, meanwhile, had rediscovered his Tiggerish bounce. He requested his client’s immediate release.
That may happen on Wednesday. The court hearing will reconvene at Westminster Magistrates (its real home). Fitzgerald promises to make a case featuring both the deteriorating conditions at Belmarsh and a considerable package of measures to reassure the court that Assange would not abscond.
This is a stunning victory for free speech, common sense and humanity. Assange heard the news from the same dock where the ‘Guilford Four’ were wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1975. It would be refreshing to think that yesterday’s judgement showcases a new era when British justice can be rightly praised for its compassion, fairness and honesty.
A little restraint with the champagne is required, however, as the response from the National Union of Journalists makes clear. “The judge rejected the defence case that the charges against Assange related to actions identical to those undertaken daily by most investigative journalists”, commented General Secretary, Michelle Stanistreet. "In doing so, she leaves open the door for a future US administration to confect a similar indictment against a journalist.”
It is a prudent caution. Of course, it is hard to imagine a similar circumstances prevailing – the most extensive and damaging national security leaks in history, an ex-CIA director running US foreign policy, and a president whose grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
As became clear during the extradition hearing, however, this conjunction appeared against a backdrop that is increasingly challenging for those who report defence and security issues. Several witnesses described US administrations ‘going into overdrive’ to classify more and more information. Rising levels of hostility to the media have been fuelled by administrations of both stripes increasing enthusiasm for chasing down and denigrating leakers who were clearly honestly intentioned. It makes it hard to believe that Assange will be the last person the US tries to prosecute for acts of journalism.
Assange departed the dock yesterday, wreathed in smiles, having caught a quick chat through the security glass with his partner Stella Morris. He faces challenges too – not least adjusting to freedoms that he has not enjoyed for a decade.
His defence made much of his appreciation of transparency, methodical checking, and concern for the welfare of others. If he chooses to return to public life at some point, my hope would be that he makes these his guiding principles.
The IFJ represents more than 600,000 journalists in 146 countries
Julian Assange: The right decision for the wrong reason
Andrew Korybko
Opinion 09:04, 05-Jan-2021
Supporters of Julian Assange protest outside the Old Bailey as the extradition hearing for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange resumes in London, England, September 7, 2020. /Getty
Editor's note: Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political analyst. The article reflects the author's views and not necessarily those of CGTN.
A British judge ruled on January 4, 2021, that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange shouldn't be extradited to the United States. He's been held for a little less than two years after being arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he had previously received asylum.
Assange is facing 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse for publishing leaked U.S. government documents passed along to him by Chelsea Manning which prove America's complicity in war crimes and diplomatic malfeasance. If convicted, he could face up to 175 years in jail.
The judge disagreed that the charges against him were politically motivated, but believed that he'd try to kill himself if he was sent to the U.S. for trial. She cited his depression, autism spectrum disorder, and the tough prison conditions that he'd suffer under. This was arguably the right decision, but for the wrong reasons. There's no doubt that Assange is being persecuted by the U.S. government for fulfilling his role as an independent journalist by publishing leaked documents that are in the public interest.
It's one thing to claim that Chelsea Manning – an active U.S. army analyst at the time who passed along the documents in question – committed a crime, and another entirely to allege the same about Australian citizen Assange. In effect, the U.S. carried out an international witch hunt against him driven by its unipolar hegemonic obsession with expanding its extrajudicial sway across the world. The purpose in doing so was to deter other foreign journalists from ever following in his footsteps and leaking classified documents.
Assange's saga has been going on for over a decade now since he published the first of Manning's documents in 2010. In the time since, he's become a global icon for press freedom, human rights, and peaceful resistance to the U.S.' aggression abroad. His case captivated the world's attention, and he became the most well-known journalist in the world. His supporters praise him for his bravery in taking what have since become life-changing risks in pursuit of the truth while his detractors regard him as a dangerous threat to U.S. government interests.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange prepares to speak from the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy where he continues to seek asylum following an extradition request from Sweden in 2012, in London, England, February 5, 2016. /Getty
There had earlier been some speculation that outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump might consider pardoning Assange, but it was actually his administration under which the sealed indictment against him was revealed in 2018. Arguments in favor of this scenario are that he did nothing wrong with respect to the Manning incident, and that if anything, he inadvertently helped the Trump campaign in 2016 by publishing leaked documents about the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Trump's opponents, meanwhile, predictably argue that any possible pardon would be the result of self-interested corruption because of Assange's role in indirectly influencing the results of the 2016 election. Some of them even believe that the Wikileaks founder was secretly coordinating with the Russian government, which had been accused of hacking those embarrassing documents. It remains to be seen whether Trump will end up issuing the speculated pardon, and whether incoming U.S. President Joe Biden will continue the case if he doesn't.
At any rate, it's a welcome development that Assange wasn't extradited to the U.S., though the American government plans to appeal the decision. This hints that Trump probably won't pardon him like his supporters hope, even though he could still do so on humanitarian grounds and/or to spite Biden. Assange deserves to be free since he's not a spy but a journalist. His whole life was ruined simply for reporting the truth about American military crimes, sensitive diplomatic issues, and embarrassing truths about the DNC and Hillary.
The latest news is that Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said that he'd be interested in granting Assange asylum if the UK releases him. It's still not clear whether London will ultimately let him go or not, but Obrador deserves to be commended for publicly taking a principled stand on this important issue of press freedom and human rights. The judge was right, Assange will likely try to kill himself if he's extradited to the U.S., but she was wrong in claiming that he's not being politically persecuted.
(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)
Opinion: Julian Assange wins, but threat to press remains
The ruling to block the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder to the United States is good news for Julian Assange. However, it does not go far enough in terms of protecting press freedom, DW's Matthias von Hein writes.
Supporters of Assange celebrate the court's ruling not to allow his extradition to the US
Following a trial that was extremely unfair in many respects, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser has ruled against allowing Britain to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States. Many observers had assumed that Britain's judiciary would sacrifice its independence, the rights of Assange and press freedom on behalf of the country's "special relationship" with the United States. After all, the courts had hampered Assange's defense at every turn. It is a cause for celebration that this British court did not give in — but it is not a cause for relief.
Baraitser did not go to bat for investigative journalism. She merely accepted the argument that Assange would likely face harsh conditions in detention in the United States and could go on to commit suicide under those circumstances.
DW's Matthias von Hein
The judge expressly contradicted the defense, who argued that Assange was being persecuted because of his journalistic activities, that his exposing of US war crimes and other wrongdoings was in the public interest, and that the trial was politically motivated. In short, Baraitser agreed on almost all points with the arguments put forward by the US government. As a result, both Julian Assange and press freedom remain at risk.
Assange's 'psychological torture'
In December US President Donald Trump pardoned four Blackwater private security contractors who had been convicted of war crimes for a massacre in Baghdad that left 14 unarmed civilians dead. The calls to respect much-vaunted American values and to pardon Assange for his role in exposing war crimes went unheeded.
The persecution of Assange has undermined the claims that Britain, the United States and the EU are the guardians of humanitarian values. This became abundantly clear in November, when a BBC correspondent confronted Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev with critical questions about restrictions on press freedoms. Aliyev fired back, saying the UK had no right to lecture other countries about human rights and press freedom given the way it had treated Assange.
So where do things go from here? The US government has already announced that it intends to appeal the ruling. It could be years before the case makes its way through the courts. Assange should not have to spend this time locked up in the high-security Belmarsh prison in London, which has been dubbed Britain's Guantanamo. After visiting the prison in 2019, UN Special Rapporteur for Torture Nils Melzer said Assange "showed all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture." Assange has spent 19 months in the prison, over half of that time in solitary confinement there, though he has not been convicted of any crime.
The first step should be to finally release Assange into house arrest to await the conclusion of the appeals process. It is hard to understand why an investigative journalist should be detained under harsher conditions than a mass murderer. The Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, for example, was permitted to await his extradition proceedings in house arrest in a mansion in a private estate close to London.
And we must remember to keep up public pressure on the authorities after this latest decision. We owe it to Julian Assange and to press freedom.
