The judgment for the Assange extradition case has been posted online and it makes for interesting reading.
It is shocking and — to be perfectly frank — more than slightly embarrassing that there has not been more analysis of the judgement in the media. Instead, there is quite a lot from the defence. The verdict is ‘unfair’, says his mother. Boohoo, says Robertson.
This is ‘infotainment’ as its worst. Holy shit: my spellcheck thinks that ‘infotainment’ is a word but not ‘spellcheck’. What the shit is this shit?
The judgment is a brilliant piece of legal reasoning. It carefully and — in my biased opinion — magnificently deconstructs the defence case against extradition. Having read through some absolute dogs of judgements, it’s nice to get one that’s straightforward and clear. Basically, everything that the defence put up as an argument was bunkum.
This is one of my favourite passages of the judgment:
The lawyer also complained that it is now difficult for his client to receive a fair trial as he had not been provided with all the evidence against him, including important exculpatory evidence. He gives as an example the witness Goran Rudling, from whom the court had heard the previous day. He only knows this evidence because Mr Rudling has contacted the defence. [Source: Sweden v Assange (2011)]
There are two problems with the defence — in the broadest, non-technical sense. The first is the utter disregard for the alleged rape victims. This will, no doubt, be played out in greater detail in the media. B-list celebrities and journalists have been jumping over themselves to denounce the case as a conspiracy against Assange. This is despite a crapload of evidence suggesting that Assange might not be entirely kosher when it comes to respecting women. Hell, one might go so far as to suspect that he has some downright obnoxious views regarding women, based on several of his statements and actions. Does that prove that he raped the women? No. But should it cause us to have second thoughts regarding his (and his representatives’) claims that he should be exonerated without trial? Damn straight it does.
The second is more interesting and it regards Geoffrey Robertson. Fun fact: when I was, like, twelve, I wanted to be Geoffrey Robertson. The guy was a hero. Lately, I’m left wondering if the guy has completely lost his cracker. He’s writing specious arguments against the Pope and, now, he’s attention-seeking with extremely sub-par arguments in high profile cases. When your best witnesses outright admit that they received the facts of the case from the defence lawyers, things have gone very, very wrong for your case. When one of them also goes on to admit that a lot of their opinions come from the media and that their opinions are considered controversial, what was the point of going to court? Robertson trying this case was like David knocking out Goliath, reaching old age, and then punching 16-year olds just to show that he still has what it takes to be king. What the hell has happened to Robertson? Is he that starved of attention?
But don’t expect the media to analyse any of this. No, no. Heterodoxy is still saying that Assange is a media hero, revealing the hidden secrets of the bureaucracy and dressing up as a woman to avoid unseen and unprovable government spies. Cough. Cough…
Fun story. Bearnard Keane writes for Crikey, right? It can hardly be considered the zenith of journalism in Australia but even he takes the cake when he writes several lengthy uncritical articles about the glory and brilliance of 4Chan while, simultaneously, a large number of 4Chan’s netizens harass a 12-year old girl with sexually explicit messages. But, no. Anonymous (/4Chan) supports Assange, so 4Chan must be ‘good guys’ while the governments trying to stop their bullshit are the ‘bad guys’. It’s so obvious now.
Oh, wait. It isn’t. The media is still too keen to write ‘good guy/bad guy’ pieces in order to make their articles more accessible to readers. For shame.