Julian Assange Has Be Granted Political Refugee Status.

As I mentioned in my previous post the founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange has today been granted political asylum/refugee status in Ecuador and as such is now protected by the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. Technically he was protected by the convention from the moment he applied for political asylum but the fact that his application has been accepted makes that protection more permanent. As such no country with the exceptions of Britain and Sweden who are viewed as 'the oppressors' for the purpose of the convention can deport Mr Assange back to either Britain or Sweden. However Britain is still refusing to grant Mr Assange safe passage from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to Ecuador proper which seems a little childish given the circumstances.

Apart from attempting to snatch Mr Assange if he were to leave the Embassy all Britain can do now is attempt to revoke the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorian Embassy under Section 1, paragraph 3(b) of the 1987 Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act. However in order to do this without it being viewed as Britain withdrawing from the Vienna Conventions and therefore losing the ability to operate Embassies or consular posts anywhere else in the world Britain will have to successfully argue that Ecuador was not justified in granting Mr Assange refugee status. This will be quite a challenge because the Assange case is almost a text book example of a local criminal justice system being used to persecute a political activist and I think we can all agree that Mr Assange is a political activist. Take the charges for example. The biggest problem is that there aren't actually any charges. Mr Assange has not been convicted, tried of even arrested for any crime. The reason the Swedish authorities are seeking his extradition from Britain is to question him. Under British, European and International law it is accepted that someone is innocent until proven guilty therefore the assumption is that someone will not be imprisoned before they go on trial. In extreme cases such as terrorism a suspect may be imprisoned before they are charged. However it is completely unheard of that someone will be imprisoned simply to allow the authorities to question them. Therefore the fact that Britain has upheld Sweden's extradition request says more about the credibility of the British legal system then it does about Mr Assange.

Then there is the issue of the alleged offences that the Swedish authorities wish to question Mr Assange about which do not represent a criminal offence anywhere else on earth. Swedish law allows for consent for a sexual act to be withdrawn after the sexual act has taken place. This flies in the face of both the legal concept of Mens Rea and the concept of time itself. After all if you engage in consensual sex on the Monday but the consent is withdraw on the Wednesday you cannot go back to the Monday and un-engage in the the sexual act. Therefore the real question should be over whether or not Sweden can participate in the European Union extradition system until they bring their laws into line with accepted convention and well reality.

If Britain still refuses to grant Mr Assange safe passage he can simply stay within the Ecuadorian Embassy. This is something that used to happen pretty regularly during the Cold War and I believe the current record is around 15 years. Alternatively it might be time for me to get in touch with a friend of a friend who once mailed himself to the National Gallery.


15:40 on 16/8/12

Edited at around 17:35 on 16/8/12;

Looking like a crestfallen man who's been having a very long day British Foreign Secretary William Hague gave a press conference on the Assange case in which he said that Britain does not recognise the principle of 'diplomatic asylum.' That's just fine and dandy but unlike members of the British government I have this tendency to read and understand things before commenting on them. Therefore I know full well that Assange has been granted 'political asylum' in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees so Britain's feelings on diplomatic asylum are immaterial.

It was interesting to hear that Britain is a nation that values the rule of law so I should be getting that letter informing me of the arrest of Mrs Patricia Hodge and Mr Denzil Lush et al sooner then I thought.