This post is the content of an open letter to the NZ Parliamentarians and the Governor General (a member of the parliament under NZ Constitution) in respect to the reporting of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (FADT) select committee's Report to the House on the Petition in the name of Greg Rzesniowiecki: "Provide Julian Assange political asylum in New Zealand"
There are three documents below, and one video;
1. Media release
2. Covering email content to NZ Parliamentarians
3. Open Letter to NZ Parliamentarians
You can see the Parliament's lack of action on the petition in this brief video of the parliament - our matter 1:02 of the 1:22 video:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=203545
We've concentrated on producing the material for the House and media as being the priority.
This post is a record of our attempts in the democratic processes to realise our shared objective - rule of law.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=203545
We've concentrated on producing the material for the House and media as being the priority.
This post is a record of our attempts in the democratic processes to realise our shared objective - rule of law.
We will also post at a new website www.freeassangenz.org.nz this post will be replicated there.
-----000---000-----
Free Assange NZ Media Release sent to a list of 70 email addresses of prominent media in NZ emailed 12:10pm...
Media
Release 30 October 2018 Free
Assange NZ For immediate use
NZ
Parliament select committee 'believe they have no jusrisdiction' to
recommend asylum for Assange in New Zealand
Parliament's
Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade (FADT) select committee's report on
the petition; “Provide Julian Assange permanent political asylum in
New Zealand” found they “believe that the scope of this petition
is outside of our jurisdiction”. The FADT report was reported
Friday 26 October. Parliament has the matter on its Order Paper for
today's sitting.
Greg
Rzesniowiecki petitioner and spokesperson for Free Assange NZ says,
“The petition is simple and well within the ambit of the FADT
committee, why else would the Clerk allocate the petition to the
committee with scope given it is Parliament's eye to the outer
world?”
The
petition asks; “That the House of Representatives urge the
Government to provide Julian Assange with permanent political asylum
in New Zealand, including a guarantee of safe passage from the United
Kingdom to New Zealand.”
Free
Assange NZ have written an open letter to all NZ Parliamentarians and
the Governor General. The open letter offers the facts of Julian
Assange's arbitrary detention in the Ecuador Embassy in London
England. It addresses the merits of the petition. It also addresses
jurisdiction.
Rzesniowiecki
reports, “We make the case for the New Zealand Government to
intercede in the matter, offer Assange political asylum in NZ and
negotiate a guarantee of safe passage from the Ecuador embassy to
safe haven in New Zealand.”
The
letter notes that the NZ Government has expressed interest in justice
in Turkey and Saudi Arabia with the killing of journalist Jamal
Khashoggi. NZ is concerning itself in Australia's treatment of
refugees offering to take 150 people currently detained on Nauru
Island.
New
Zealand is upgrading it's domestic law designed to protect
whistleblowers with Monday 29 October announcement by Minister Chris
Hipkins of proposed amendments to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000.
New
Zealand asserts its independent foreign policy – interceding to
free Julian Assange journalist and editor, peace lover and protector
of whistleblowers who reveal and disclose war crimes, aggression,
corrupt and criminal behaviour would be a great Next Step*.
Ends.
Greg
Rzesniowiecki on behalf of Free Assange NZ
*
Rt Hon Winston Peters Minister of Foreign Affairs Speech to Otago
Foreign Policy School 29 June 2018 “Next Steps”
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/next-steps
-----000---000-----
This portion is the content of the covering email sent 12:03pm
Dear New Zealand Parliamentarians and Her Excellency The Right Honourable Dame Patsy Reddy GNZM, QSO Governor-General of New Zealand
The attached is an open letter in respect to the Petition to the House in the name of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Provide Julian Assange political asylum in New Zealand;
"That the House of Representatives urge the Government to provide Julian Assange with permanent political asylum in New Zealand, including a guarantee of safe passage from the United Kingdom to New Zealand."
We ask you to consider the matter carefully and consider the recommended actions set out on page 5 of the letter, and replicated here;
Members can Act arising from the FADT report through one of the following mechanisms (advised by Clerk's office);
1. Motion for an urgent debate - a Member could write to the Speaker requesting an urgent debate, which would occur immediate after question or a time determined by Speaker/Business Committee.
2. Bring it up in General Business which will be Wednesday this week after Question Time.
3. Introduce a Private Members Bill or a party introduces a Bill to the House.
4. A Notice of Motion – a Member seeks leave to place a motion on the Order Paper
5. A Member's Motion - where a Member seeks leave to introduce a Motion to the House with or without debate which might arise from the Clerk's report of the petition to the House today at the commencement of Parliamentary business.
We urge Members to act in respect to this matter.
Many thanks for your consideration,
Warm regards
Greg Rzesniowiecki
on behalf of Free Assange NZ
-----000---000-----
Open Letter to Parliamentarians emailed 12:03 pm
Tuesday
30 October 2018
From:
Greg Rzesniowiecki Petitioner Free Assange NZ
associates
To:
All NZ Parliamentarians and Her Excellency The Right Honourable Dame
Patsy Reddy GNZM, QSO Governor-General of New Zealand
By
Email:
Members:
as addressed
Governor
General
Subject:
We request you provide Julian Assange asylum in New
Zealand: Whistleblowers and Wikileaks vital for informed democracy
Dear
Member of the NZ Parliament,
I
write on behalf of Free Assange NZ to advise of our attitude to the
Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade (FADT) committee report in respect
to the petition to the New Zealand Parliament to provide
Julian Assange editor of Wikileaks political asylum in New Zealand
in the name of Greg Rzesnioweicki.1
The
petition was sponsored by NZ Labour MP for Ohariu Greg O'Connor,
presented to the House 14 September and referred to the FADT
committee which has finalised their report without
considering the merits of the matter.
Free
Assange NZ and the petitioner respectfully request that the NZ
Parliament carefully consider the merits of the matter.
This
letter offers the facts of the Julian Assange arbitrary detention in
the Ecuador Embassy in London England. It addresses the merits of the
petition. It also addresses jurisdiction.
We
make the case for the New Zealand Government to intercede in the
matter, offer Assange political asylum in NZ and negotiate a
guarantee of safe passage from the Ecuador embassy to safe haven in
New Zealand.
The
FADT report was uploaded to the Parliament website late afternoon
Friday 26 October. It says in a nutshell that committee "believe
they have no jusrisdiction"2
The
report to Parliament is for today's sitting Tuesday 30 October 2018.
We suggest mechanisms to proceed on page 5 of this letter.
Screen
capture of FADT report content for your convenience – I've
highlighted the finding;
Lack
of jurisdiction?
In
respect to the committee's view of it's own limited jusrisdiction,
let us start with the Rule
of Law definition from
Lexis Nexis3
- extracted wisdom;
The
Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is
above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth,
and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be
discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.
The
most important application of the rule of law is the principle that
governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance
with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in
accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as
due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against
arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob
rule. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to dictatorship and to
anarchy.
Members
might find this commentary of interest; “Statutory recognition of
the rule of law” August 25, 20164
about how a certain MP saved the day and stopped 'Rule of Law' being
removed from Section 3(2) Purpose
of the Supreme Court Act;
3(2)
Nothing in this Act affects New Zealand’s continuing commitment to
the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.
I've
extracted the bit about the heroine who saved 'Rule of Law' from the
referenced article;
Until
yesterday, that is. For whatever reason, Labour Opposition MP Jacinda
Ardern chose to take issue with the Government’s proposal. She
worked behind the scenes to drum up support for a Supplementary Order
Paper that would reinstate s 3(2). It took some time, but it worked.
Statutory recognition that the rule of law is a constitutional value
in New Zealand will remain.
I
think that’s important for 2 reasons. First, because the rule of
law is important, as I’ve already mentioned. But second, and
perhaps most interestingly, this episode has given us something of an
insight into how Parliament deals with constitutional issues. Section
3(2) will be retained because one MP decided that its constitutional
significance was important, and she managed to convince enough other
Parliamentarians that they should take it seriously as well.
New
Zealand’s constitution is sometimes maligned for being flexible and
uncertain, but Jacinda’s efforts show that it still works well
(eventually) when enough people in power take constitutional values
seriously. At for the moment, at least, they do.
The
Parliament is sovereign and can make any decision it presumes to5
(You might note experience in another matter - Parliament's sovereign
ability to make a decision is the 'rock' 'TPP Free Wellington' struck
when advancing a petition to the Governor General to not Assent to
the TPP legislation in 2016 before a binding referendum was
conducted).
The
Constitutional independence and sovereignty of Parliament is well
established, it has already passed it's own Constitution Act of 1986.
NZ Parliament determined it's own sovereignty and the Governor
General Assented.
The
NZ Constitution an essay by John McSoriley B.A. LL.B. Legislative
Analyst Parliamentary Library 15 February 2000 Updated: 03 October
2005 “The New Zealand Constitution”6
in 5 pages, which has the following to say that may be pertinet to
our matter;
International
conventions
International
conventions describe norms of behaviour agreed to by States. There
also exists international law based on customary principles or “the
comity of nations” (i.e. from the accepted practice of states).
International conventions apply to countries which have in some
manner adopted them [11]. Those countries may, by so doing, have
agreed to subject themselves to the adjudication of international
courts or tribunals. However, the New Zealand Parliament may
legislate contrary to the “comity of nations” and international
covenants [12]. New Zealand’s courts will generally not enforce
international conventions but there is now a well established
practice in New Zealand whereby the courts treat them as part of the
background to be considered in the interpretation of legislation and
in the judicial review of executive decisions [13]. International
conventions become law and will be enforced by the courts when their
provisions are included in a statute. For example, New Zealand is a
signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(1978) and the provisions of that convention have influenced much of
our rights legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1993 and the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
References
from text;
[11]
The New Zealand Parliament has asserted a more prominent role in the
adoption of international conventions : see: Report of the Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Inquiry into Parliament’s
Role in the International Treaty Process, Report, 1997, Report I. 4A;
Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Review of
the International Treaty Examination Process, 1999, Report I. 4E.
[12]
Philip A. Joseph, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New
Zealand, Brookers, Wellington 2nd ed., 2001, p. 504.
[13]
Van Gorkham v. Attorney-General [1977] 1 N.Z.L.R. 535.
Our
petition merely requests
"That
the House of Representatives urge
the Government to provide Julian Assange with permanent political
asylum in New Zealand, including a guarantee of safe passage from the
United Kingdom to New Zealand."
The
question of jurisdiction might go to the ability of the New Zealand
Government being able to broker a truce or ability to guarantee it's
offer, however, that is a matter to be discovered when the Government
considers the urging of
NZ's Parliament following rule of law
and acts in accord with the request.
Where
the Government refuses to act on Parliament's urge
it is finished as far as the petition's value is concerned.
Free
Assange NZ and the petitioner will continue to seek justice and the
application of rule of law in the matter of Julian Assange – You
have sufficient jurisdiction to acede to the petition's request.
Members
can Act arising from the FADT report or of their own volition
Members
can Act arising from the FADT report through one of the following
mechanisms (advised by Clerk's office);
1.
Motion for an urgent debate - a Member could write to the Speaker
requesting an urgent debate, which would occur immediate after
question or a time determined by Speaker/Business Committee.
2.
Bring it up in General Business which will be Wednesday this week
after Question Time.
3.
Introduce a Private Members Bill or a party introduces a Bill to the
House.
4.
A Notice of Motion – a Member seeks leave to place a motion on the
Order Paper
5.
A Member's notion - where a Member seeks leave to introduce a Motion
to the House with or without debate which might arise from the
Clerk's report of the petition to the House today at the commencement
of Parliamentary business.
We
urge Members to act.
NZ
elected member of UN Security Council 2015-2016
New
Zealand served a two-year term as an elected member of the United
Nations Security Council from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 20167.
During
the period NZ was elected to the UN Security Council the UN made a
decision that Julian Assange has been subjected to arbitrary
detention in his confinement in the Ecuador Embassy in London. The UN
decision is also referenced in the petition text.
UN
Working Group decision 5 February 2016
On
5 February 2016, the UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
concluded that Assange had been subject to arbitrary detention since
7 Dec 20108
- extract of Disposition clauses 99, 100, 101;
Disposition
99.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the
following opinion:
The
deprivation of liberty of Mr. Assange is arbitrary and in
contravention of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It falls within
category III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the
cases submitted to the Working Group.
100.
Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the
Government of Sweden and the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland to assess the situation of Mr.
Assange, to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate
the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient
manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by
the international norms on detention.
101.
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.
New
Zealand can assist the UN and rule of law
New
Zealand can assist the UN and rule of law through granting Julian
Assange asylum and thus the right to free movement in this Sovereign
Nation. Clause #100 of the UN Working Group decision is an invitation
to treat.
There
is ample jurisdictional scope for the Parliament to adopt an attitude
and support the rule of law in the case of Julian Assange. The case
is important in that “NZ has more jurisdiction to offer asylum”
than it has to support “asylum delivered by another nation such as
Ecuador” which has come under pressure from the US9.
Equally NZ could condemn the attitude of the Australian Government
for withdrawing Assange's passport and offering limited consular
support to free him from his detention in Ecuador's embassy in
London.
NZ
could approach the UK authorities and broker a truce, to free
Assange. It may involve discussions with US authorities, however NZ
ought assert it's independent foreign policy lauded by some as an
approach to build peace.
Hon
Winston Peters has broadened the ambit in respect to New Zealand's
foreign policy settings and attitude inviting consideration of NZ's
Next Steps10
the title of his speech.
The
'New Zealand Alternative' is; “Seeking a broader debate on New
Zealand's role in the world” by Nina Hall, Oct 25 201811.
Nina
Hall is Assistant Professor of International Relations at Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. She is a founding
member of New Zealand Alternative along with Max Harris, Thomas Nash
and Laura O'Connell Rapira. Extract from the linked stuff article;
We
want to widen the group of people taking part in conversations about
our country's role in the world, and to challenge the orthodoxies in
our foreign policy. That's why we have created New Zealand
Alternative. We take up the challenge set by Winston Peters at this
year's Otago Foreign Policy School: "It
is not a time for intellectual timidity. It is a time for original
thinking as we develop foreign policy prescriptions ..."
He
issued a direct invitation to think differently about our foreign
policy: "Creative syntheses and challenging old verities is
needed more than ever so be bold and take risks in your work. If you
do you will find in this Government a receptive ear to your ideas".
New Zealand Alternative was founded with a commitment to contribute
to bold thinking on the place of Aotearoa New Zealand in the world.
Wikileaks
and Julian Assange are all about disclosure of war-mongering and
corruption.
We
appreciate that transparency is key to mitigating against corruption.
New
Zealand's commitment to the Open Government Partnership (OGP) over 70
nations along with the UK and US ought count for more than mere
rhetoric. Government is about to contemplate recommendations for the
coming OGP commitment12.
Everywhere
there is evidence of corruption where transparency is low. Money
despoiling the principles in politics is evident and still we must
trust in truth, rule of law and are actively encouraged to trust the
government and government process.13
What doesn't merit discussion is UK and US influence or many other
ruthless interests.
The
case for asylum for Julian Assange
Wikileaks
provides anonymity14
and encouragement to whistleblowers to reveal crime and corruption to
public gaze.
We
are asking New Zealand to offer multi-award-winning journalist15
Julian Assange,
political asylum. He is effectively a political prisoner subject to
arbitrary detention, being aggressively persecuted and smeared by the
U.S., U.K.,
Australia, and Sweden simply
for doing his work as a journalist.
Ms.
Julia Gillard then Australian Government Prime Minister accused
Assange and Wikileaks of criminal activities for revealing State
Secrets16,
despite the law protecting whistleblowers and Press Freedom.
NZ
has a similar ignorance of the law in relation to protected
disclosures and whistleblowing amongst members of this House –
discovered as we approached various Representatives to be the
petition's sponsoring MP. We suggest it is critical that
Parliamentarians apprehend the the rule of law principle.
At
least the Minister is onto the Law. The proposed changes to the
Protected Disclosures Act 2000 aim to protect whistleblowers from
losing their jobs or being mistreated, says Minister of State
Services Chris Hipkins.17
"Most
importantly, citizens who speak up in the public interest need to
have confidence the law will protect them from punishment and
reprisal."
The
Government has proposed five changes:
- address the areas of confusion in the current Act
- make sure organisations have good processes in place
- make it easier for people to report wrongdoing
- create a single port of call for advice on when and how to use the Act
- introduce new reporting obligations for all organisations
Rule
of Law applied universally? NZ jurisdiction extends to Turkey and
Saudi Arabia.
New
Zealand must stand for the rule of law applying to
Assange as it does
for any other journalist. New Zealand condemned the apparent killing
of Khashoggi in the Saudi Arabian embassy in Turkey.18
The extent of New Zealand's interest in a Saudi Arabian journalist is
astonishing.
The
Hon. Winston Peters assisted by Hon. David Parker stated the
Government's position on the 'Death of Jamal Khashoggi'19;
Foreign
Affairs Minister Winston Peters and Minister for Trade and Export
Growth David Parker say the New Zealand government continues to
condemn in the strongest possible terms the killing of journalist
Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi operatives...
...MFAT
officials met with the Saudi Embassy in Wellington on Tuesday to
raise New Zealand’s concerns over Mr Khashoggi’s disappearance
and have reiterated to the Saudi Embassy the need for the
investigation to be full and transparent.
Trade
Minister David Parker says as previously noted no New Zealand
officials will attend the upcoming Future Investment Initiative
('Davos in the Desert') event in Riyadh.
“As
for the trading relationship in the region the FTA talks remain
stalled pending the Gulf Cooperation Council resolving their dispute
with Qatar, which we do not expect to be resolved in the near
future,” said Mr Parker.
NZ
interest in Nauru refugees
New
Zealand has taken an active interest in the plight of Indonesian
refugees intercepted and detained in Nauru. Australia's Government
has introduced a Bill to their Parliament to deny these 150 special
individuals granted refugee status in NZ any later access to
Australia, irrespective of future developments in an individual's
life nor the political reality of tomorrow.20
New Zealand's interest in the plight of refugees and the initial
offer was made despite the policy and desire of consecutive
Australian Governments to villify refugees from Western wars and
colonialism's consequences.21
It appears that Australians support getting the refugees off Nauru
Island.22
What
of Julian Assange journalist and editor of Wikileaks?
Great
concern is held
for Mr Assange’s health. After 6 years of confinement in Ecuador’s
Embassy in London, without access to sunlight, fresh air, or proper
medical treatment, Mr Assange’s health is poor. Since March 2018,
he has been in solitary confinement, denied visitors, phone calls and
access to the internet, harsh treatment for someone already confined
for so long.
With
increasing American pressure on Ecuador, he is about to be evicted
against U.N. conventions, for a treason or espionage trial that’s
likely to be held in secret. British
doctors examined Assange in October 2017 and said he needed hospital
treatment,
but
the U.K., U.S.'s main ally, won’t allow this without arresting him.
The
U.S. and U.K. Governments are acting in breach of the UN Declaration
of Human Rights, in particular Articles 2, 9-14 and 19.23
Why
Wikileaks is Important to Stop the Wars
Julian
Assange and colleagues founded Wikileaks in 2006. Wikileaks is a
unique organization committed to transparency and accountability,
allowing whistleblowers to hold governments and corporations to
account. Italian journalist, Stefania Maurizi,24
reports
that Assange and his team pioneered such an effective model that it
has been adopted by most major media outlets,
and established collaborative reporting, now a model for many
organisations, including the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).
“Thanks
to Wikileaks,” reports Maurizi, “it has been possible to reveal
the true face of the U.S. wars
in
Afghanistan and Iraq,” the identities of Guantanamo detainees
(Gitmo Files), scandals and embarrassing diplomatic deals contained
in 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables, such as pressure from the U.S. to
neutralize Italian prosecutors investigating the extraordinary
rendition of Milan cleric, Abu Omar (Cablegate.) It has also revealed
EU military operations to stop migrants and refugees, and the CIA
cyber weapons programme, amongst other things. This valuable
information has been made available to the world by Wikileaks free of
charge, so journalists, activists and citizens can access the files
and be informed. Assange has taken enormous risks in his work, says
Maurizi, yet, is the most demonised man on the planet.
In
2010 Mr Assange oversaw publication of material from U.S.
whistleblower and ex-soldier Chelsea Manning, including Collateral
Murder (videos of Baghdad airstrikes on civilians in 2007), 75,000
Afghanistan war logs; 400,000 Iraq war logs and a quarter-million US
State Department diplomatic cables (Cablegate). This material was
widely used by mainstream media as stories of legitimate and
important public interest, some identifying crimes against humanity.
In the same year, 2010, as this revelatory material was published,
America, under former President Obama, launched a criminal
investigation into Wikileaks and asked allied countries to help.
Rape
Allegations Disposed
November
2010 saw
Sweden
issue an arrest warrant for Mr Assange on suspicion of rape after he
visited Sweden. Assange denied the charges,
and
was vindicated when his extradition warrant from Sweden was revoked
on 19 May 2017, and the prosecutor closed the investigation.
Having
obtained Mr. Assange’s testimony, the prosecutor decided it would
be disproportionate to proceed and that “conduct alleged by the
police disclosed no crime at all.” In addition, SMS messages from
the alleged complainant showed that she “did not want to accuse
Assange of anything,” that she felt “railroaded by police and
others around her” and that “police made up the charges”25
It’s
particularly disturbing that the rape allegations came at the same
time as Wikileaks was being criticised for publishing material the
U.S. didn’t want published, though it was in the public interest to
know of human rights transgressions in wars perpetrated by the US-led
Western Alliance.
Binding
international law supports
Assange's release
In
February 2016, the U.N.'s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, whose
decisions are considered authoritative by the European Court on Human
Rights, concluded that Assange had been subject to arbitrary
detention by the UK and Swedish Governments since 7 December 2010,
including his time in prison, on conditional bail and in the
Ecuadorian Embassy.26
According to the U.N. group, Assange should be allowed to walk free
and be given compensation. Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein, the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights, has said the finding is based on
binding international law.
We
note also that in July 2018
the
Inter-American
Court of Human Rights
ruled
that those seeking political asylum have the right to take refuge in
embassies and diplomatic compounds.27
The court states that governments are obliged to provide safe passage
out of the country to those granted asylum. The ruling did not name
Assange, but it’s a powerful rebuke to the British government,
which has refused to allow the WikiLeaks co-founder safe passage to
the airport or hospital.
Julian
Assange’s fate is not just the fate of one man. The clear intent of
United States administrations, past and present, is to silence and
imprison him for many years for his publishing work.
Daniel
Ellsberg, iconic Pentagon Papers whistleblower, in June 2010, said he
feared for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, as he feared for
himself after the Pentagon Papers were published in 1971.
Press
under attack
Concern
for press freedom and
whistleblowers in America has increased because former President
Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers than did all U.S. presidents
combined, including former soldier Chelsea Manning, imprisoned for 7
years.
Obama’s
presidency favoured a policy of “quiet, media-free wars,” to hide
the consequences of increased wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, and the
huge expansion
of
U.S. special operations forces deployed to 138 countries, compared
with only 60 when he took office.28
29
Edward
Snowden, another casualty of Obama’s presidency, fled to Russia in
2013, after exposing illegal mass surveillance by U.S. agencies of
their own citizens and in other countries. Undoubtedly this policy of
greatly increased prosecution of whistleblowers in America was
implemented deliberately to intimidate and curb press freedom
especially coverage of wars. This
is a grave concern for
press
freedom, democracy and the right of the public to access information.
These are rights fundamental to enlightened democracy.
Groups
oppose extradition
Calling
on the U.K. to prevent Assange’s extradition to the U.S. is not a
controversial position.
There
is already consensus among leading voices of the human rights
community that US attempts to prosecute Assange amount to
persecution, and that extradition to the United States would weaken
press freedoms at home and abroad.
Amnesty
International in 2012 called for governments concerned to "issue
assurances" that Julian Assange "will not be extradited to
the US in connection with Wikileaks." The American Civil
Liberties Union Executive Director, Anthony Romero stated: "it’s
clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in connection
with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and
unconstitutional. The prolonged criminal investigation of Wikileaks
itself has had a profound chilling effect. The Justice Department
should end that investigation." Ben Wizner, also of ACLU,
stated: "Any prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing government
secrets would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration
would surely use to target other news organizations."
The
U.S.
Senate in the context of alleged attacks on the Press by President
Donald Trump, determined unanimously on Thursday 16 August 2018 that
the U.S. Press is “not an enemy of the people.”30
“It reaffirms the vital and indispensable role that the free press
serves to inform the electorate, uncover the truth, act as a check on
the inherent power of the government, further national discourse and
debate, and otherwise advance the most basic and cherished democratic
norms and freedoms of the United States; and condemns attacks on the
institution of the free press and views efforts to systematically
undermine credibility of the press as an attack on the democratic
institutions of the United States;”
The
US Senate decision could have positive implications for Wikileaks and
Assange. However, in recent years there have been attempts by
American authorities to claim that Wikileaks and Assange have no
First Amendment Rights. Yet political persecution of Assange, if
permitted to continue, will irreversibly undermine press freedoms in
the West and has already been used to justify crackdowns against
publishers and journalists in other countries.
Recent
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull as an opposition MP gave
an address to Sydney University law faculty 31 March 2011 making the
case for Assange and Wikileaks as a legitimate
publisher.31
Turnbull
made a number of points from law and the First Amendment of the US
Constitution.
Latest
developments in Assange matter point to a messy period before any
closure and settlement. Ecuador apparently issued Assange with new
requirements and Assange counters through suit in Ecuador's courts to
argue that he is oppressed with unreasonable demands.32
To
move the world in a progressive fashion to support the wellbeing of
all earthly inhabitants requires the adoption of fair and just
principles. We have that in the rule of law – please act lawfully.
Abiding
by law, peace & security
Free
Assange NZ request that New Zealand's Government take a clear stand
on the key issue of the publisher’s right to publish without threat
of imprisonment. We ask
the New Zealand Parliament to take note of the U.N.
position on international law and to offer Assange political asylum
as a journalist threatened with a U.S.
trial
for publishing information
in the public interest. This is consistent with New Zealand’s
national interest in freedom of the press and democratic societies
and the right of the public to know what is being done in their name.
Whistleblowers do vital work in democratic societies, ensuring that
misuse of power and corruption is exposed, holding governments,
corporations and people to account. Without their courageous work,
the rule of law and careful investigation would disintegrate and our
societies would descend into
frightening arbitrary arrests, imprisonment, executions and
dictatorship.
It
is imperative that we protect press freedoms and whistleblowers
for
our own society and for peace and security in the world.
Whistleblowers and their work should be honoured, not persecuted.
New
Zealand can help the world find its way back from the abyss by
supporting international law which is being flouted repeatedly by US,
UK, Western allies and alleged frenemies Russia, China, Iran and more
according to everyone's reports on everyone else.
Yours
sincerely,
Greg
Rzesniowiecki, and a number of Free Assange NZ* associates
Alex
Hills, Alan Preston, Amanda
Vickers, Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn, Clare
Jonas, Fiona Hansen, Kay
Weir, Lisa Er, Paul
Bruce, Stephanie Greenham
*Free
Assange NZ http://freeassangenz.org.nz/
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/FreeAssangeNZ/
15 Julian
Assange won the Amnesty International UK Media Award (New Media) in
2009; the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011; the Walkley
Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism in November
2011; in 2015 Assange won the Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal for
Peace with Justice, previously awarded to only three people—Nelson
Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and Buddhist spiritual leader Daisaku
Ikeda.
19 Hon.
Winston Peters and Hon. David Parker Ministerial statement:
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/death-jamal-khashoggi
23 http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Article #19; Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
24 Inside
Wikileaks: Working with the publisher that changed the world by
Stefania Maurizi, 19/7/2018 Full article:
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/19/inside-wikileaks-working-with-the-publisher-that-changed-the-world/
27 https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Inter-American-Court-Ruling-Benefits-Julian-Assange-20180713-0003.html
and for larger context this from Chris Hedges at Truthdig:
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-war-on-assange-is-a-war-on-press-freedom/
28 In
March 2015 the Washington D.C.-based Physicians for Social
Responsibility released a report saying the U.S. interventions in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan alone killed close to 2 million, and
the figure was closer to 4 million when tallying up deaths of
civilians caused by the US in other countries, such as Syria and
Yemen.
29 Obama’s
Bombing Legacy’ by Nicolas J.S. Davies in Consortium News,
18/1/2017:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/18/obamas-bombing-legacy/
; and ‘The Silent Slaughter of the US Air War’ by Nicolas J.S.
Davies, in Consortium News, 9/5/2017:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/09/the-silent-slaughter-of-the-us-air-war/
31 https://bleyzie.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/malcolm-turnbull-a-speach-worth-reading/
the following passages; 1. from a decision of the High Court of
Australia in 1980, Commonwealth v. Fairfax, of Sir Anthony Mason,
and; 2. US Supreme Court Justice Black in respect to the Pentagon
Papers;
1.
“It is unacceptable in our democratic society that there should be
a restraint on the publication of information relating to government
when the only vice of that information is that it enables the public
to discuss, review and criticise government action.”
It
was also a fundamental part of our jurisprudence that a court would
not restrain the publication of confidences if their disclosure
would reveal the commission of crimes and unlawful acts.
2.
It is worth remembering too in this context the words of US Supreme
Court Justice Black in the Pentagon Papers case:
“The
guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of
informed representative government provides no real security for our
Republic. The framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both
the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and
Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and
security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion and
assembly should not be abridged.”
