Rapey Aussie to face brutality of Swedish justice

[bertruss2]

This is the UN conclusion on the Assange case:

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the adequate remedy would be to ensure the right of free movement of Mr. Assange and accord him an enforceable right to compensation, in accordance with article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The legal situation is that the European Arrest Warrant is not valid and Assange is free to travel to Ecuador, where he has been granted political asylum and that he is entitled to compensation.

[auldhippy]

The foreign secretary was apparently not briefed on the fact that WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

This response is of course disappointing, but it is also untenable. Political posturing cannot and should not prevail over a detailed, impartial assessment based on facts and law.

Britain and Sweden cannot simply ignore WGAD’s findings because it is them in the dock, or because they disagree with Assange’s whistleblowing activities.

The system of international human rights law established by the United Nations Charter serves to protect the rights of all persons, weak and strong, throughout the world.

Their disregard for this decision would only serve to diminish this system of protection, and weaken the rights of victims everywhere. Of course, today it is Assange – an antipodean who challenges authority – but tomorrow, if it is someone from England or Sweden locked up illegally, what authority will Sweden and Britain have to demand their release?

Read more: www.smh.com.au/national/disregard-for-un-ruling-on-assanges-detention-a-blow-to-human-rights-20160207-gmnlsp.html#ixzz3zaZmcxeO
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 8, 2016 15:01:46 GMT auldhippy said:

The foreign secretary was apparently not briefed on the fact that WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

This response is of course disappointing, but it is also untenable. Political posturing cannot and should not prevail over a detailed, impartial assessment based on facts and law.

Britain and Sweden cannot simply ignore WGAD’s findings because it is them in the dock, or because they disagree with Assange’s whistleblowing activities.

The system of international human rights law established by the United Nations Charter serves to protect the rights of all persons, weak and strong, throughout the world.

Their disregard for this decision would only serve to diminish this system of protection, and weaken the rights of victims everywhere. Of course, today it is Assange – an antipodean who challenges authority – but tomorrow, if it is someone from England or Sweden locked up illegally, what authority will Sweden and Britain have to demand their release?

Read more: www.smh.com.au/national/disregard-for-un-ruling-on-assanges-detention-a-blow-to-human-rights-20160207-gmnlsp.html#ixzz3zaZmcxeO
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Melinda Taylor is a human rights lawyer and a member of Julian Assange's legal team

that's impartial then:

As a result, Assange was faced with an impossible catch-22; if he stayed in the Embassy, he could be detained indefinitely, but if he left he would be the next victim of the US’ war on whistle-blowers.


and sh*te

[Whiterum]

Can he not be airlifted from the Embassy and flown out of the UK, or will he be shot down?

[bertruss2]

that's impartial then:

WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

[lala]

Quoting it again does not alter the fact that Melinda Taylor is not objective.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 8, 2016 17:28:44 GMT bertruss2 said:

that's impartial then:

WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

Melinda Taylor is a human rights lawyer and a member of Julian Assange's legal team

That isn't impartial.

[lala]

Cough:

NOTE TO EDITORS:
The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.

The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.

link

So not legally binding at all then.

[bertruss2]

Quoting it again does not alter the fact that Melinda Taylor is not objective.

The judgement that Julian Assange should be given back his freedom and receive compensation was not made by Melinda Taylor but by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 8, 2016 17:57:08 GMT bertruss2 said:

Quoting it again does not alter the fact that Melinda Taylor is not objective.

The judgement that Julian Assange should be given back his freedom and receive compensation was not made by Melinda Taylor but by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

Jesus, you're all at sea. Quoting Assange's lawyers doesn't make it fact HOWEVER BOLD YOU MAKE IT

[bertruss2]

Quoting Assange's lawyers doesn't make it fact

If you said the earth doesn't go round the sun, it wouldn't stop because you said it didn't. What are you denying about the description of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention? I assume you are speaking from a position of total ignorance.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 8, 2016 18:28:07 GMT bertruss2 said:

Quoting Assange's lawyers doesn't make it fact

If you said the earth doesn't go round the sun, it wouldn't stop because you said it didn't. What are you denying about the description of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention? I assume you are speaking from a position of total ignorance.

WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.


That bit.

[auldhippy]

Feb 8, 2016 17:49:41 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

Feb 8, 2016 17:28:44 GMT bertruss2 said:

WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

Melinda Taylor is a human rights lawyer and a member of Julian Assange's legal team

That isn't impartial.

Is it inaccurate?

[Repat Van]

Bert is doing his normal silly routine of just quoting things over and over ignoring the facts presented to him.

Ignore him.

[bertruss2]

which applies binding standards of international law

That refers to the human rights treaties and conventions which are, indeed, legally binding on the signatories. The Working Group found the UK and Sweden to be in violation of legally binding provisions in agreements which they are signed up to. It's important to note that the UK and Sweden participated in the examination of the Assange case and the legal experts (by a majority) rejected their arguments.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 8, 2016 19:34:59 GMT auldhippy said:

Feb 8, 2016 17:49:41 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

Melinda Taylor is a human rights lawyer and a member of Julian Assange's legal team

That isn't impartial.

Is it inaccurate?

The whole article or just that bit?

[wetkingcanute]

The United Nations has become a laughing stock. It has on its Human Rights Council delegates from Saudi Arabia; Algeria; Russia and Togo.
We are the fifth largest donor, providing more than 5% of its income - and we are one of the very few countries in the world to even pretend to give a monkey's about its fatuous adjudications. Three members of the UN panel from South Korea, Mexico and Benin have decided that we have detained Assange wrongly and that he should be "released" and paid compensation.
He has entered the Ecuadorean embassy and stayed there for 3 years because he does not wish to face charges of sexual assault in Sweden.
We have not detained him. He is free to go. It is not detention - he is hiding.

[Repat Van]

Quite. The UN only carries weight with people such as OH and Bert. It was never going to reach any other conclusion.

[Repat Van]

And they have missed that he wasn't detained. He chose to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Feb 8, 2016 20:07:08 GMT bertruss2 said:

which applies binding standards of international law

That refers to the human rights treaties and conventions which are, indeed, legally binding on the signatories. The Working Group found the UK and Sweden to be in violation of legally binding provisions in agreements which they are signed up to. It's important to note that the UK and Sweden participated in the examination of the Assange case and the legal experts (by a majority) rejected their arguments.

Treaties and conventions may be legally binding. the opinions of a working group on how those treaties apply aren't. Even they concede they are only indirectly binding.