Soldato
So? It didn't happen in the UK. It could be illegal to look people in the eye in Sweden if they want - and seek an extradition for that.
Assange to go!
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
Man of Honour
Quotes aside, Assange has failed to show he has any case at all.
Not my assertions old chap, they are the British Courts.
And because Sweden are a signatory to ECHR Assange will have legal protection from any such interference if it is the case. As the British Court pointed out.
The court dismissed that, quite rightly. One of the charges relates to having sex without consent, that is also a British definition of Rape. Again as the Judge pointed out.
Which is precisely what the British Court said, extradition to Sweden will not infringe his Human Rights because of the protections given to him by Sweden's membership of the ECHR and it's own Extradition procedures and laws are robust enough to give him protection in this this case.
Again, they failed to prove that was the case.
Only to witness statements, not from those they wish to interview in relation to them actually committing an offence. That applies to the British Police. They wish to interview him under caution, this cannot be dont via satellite link.
Yes he is, it is only Assange that is saying he isn't. Sex without consent is Rape and sexual assault in the UK, and one of the accusations against him relates specifically to sex without consent.
Last edited:
They can't, one of the conditions of extradition is that the crime they are being extradited for is recognised by the state they are being extradited from.
In Assange's case however this is clear, as sex without consent is illegal in the UK as well as Sweden.
Assange has no real legal basis, every lawyer other than his own who has commented on this states the same, he will be extradited under the conditions of the EAW and he is simply using delaying tactics to influence the case in his favour when he finally has to answer the accusations in Sweden.
Soldato
Oh. Shame really. I need to stop living in the Star Trek world.
Caporegime
I'm surprised the "free Gary McKinnon" folks aren't all over this like the kind of ugly rash you'd get from a Geordie girl.
Caporegime
Jeremy Clarkson? Is that you?
Soldato
It's a non case. Hasn't it already been thrown out of the courts once already? And didn't the women involved say that they were pressured into pushing charges, and that he didn't do anything wrong?
If he's found guilty then we'll know there's been some serious foul play going on here...
If he's found guilty then we'll know there's been some serious foul play going on here...
The answer to those questions is, No it hasn't even been to a court yet, let alone thrown out, and No, neither woman said he did nothing wrong, quite the opposite.
If he is found guilty, it will mean that he is a rapist and sexual predator, if he his found innocent it will not.
Just because he has (questionable) ethics in regard to wikileaks, doesn't follow that he has ethics at all regarding how he treats women.
Do you think he should not return to answer the accusations against him. Is it ok to simply leave a country and and say "no sorry, I don't feel like I did anything wrong, even if two women are accusing me of sexual abuse and rape"
Say someone abused and had sex with your sister without her consent, he then moved to France, is that ok to say "well he isn't here anymore so lets forget it" or would you want him returned to answer to the accusations against him?
Last edited:
Well that is not true either.
Judgements are binding on the States that are signed to it and they are legally obliged to execute those judgements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
Protocol 11 means that states no longer have the option of not accepting the judgements passed down by court of human rights. Once they have ratified the ECHR then they are legal bound by it's judgements. Sweden ratified the ECHR so is thus bound. Assange's rights are thus protected even if he is extradited and so he cannot use that as a defence against extradition.
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/155.htm
Caporegime
No it won't, since he's not accused of being a rapist and sexual predator.
One of the accusations against him is rape, the others amount to sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
Rapist and sexual predator seem pretty accurate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
Soldato
Castiel are you aware of the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy?
If the British Government doesn't want to do as the ECHR says, it wont. The ECHR is a dog without teeth because it has no means of enforcing its doctrine. It's endorsed by the ECJ under Article 6 but the ECJ is a dog without teeth as well. All it can do is impose a fine.
In 1951, the UK became a signatory to the ECHR but it was only in 1965 that citizens were given the right to even petition to the ECHR. And even then it wasn't part of domestic law until 1998 when we incorporated. What parliament enacts it can revoke. And if it can revoke it it doesn't have to be bound by its decisions. And even if a decision is binding its binding only in international law under the convention, and has no direct binding force in domestic law. The only way the ECHR can hope for it to be binding in its entirety is by relying on the willingness of the individual states who have signed up to it to follow and abide by its conventions and judgements.
We abide by it because we want to, not because we have to.
EDIT: In fact I'm going to quote a textbook to show you just how wrong you are.
Constitutional and Administrative Law by John Alder 7th Edition, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) p. 388
"The ECHR as such is not strictly binding upon English courts but can be taken into account where the law is unclear or where a judge has discretionary powers. The individual can petition to the European Court of Human Rights the decisions of which are binding in international law but unlike those of the European Court of Justice (In relation to European Union law) are not legally binding in domestic law.
The HRA 1998, while not incorporating the Convention as such, has given the main rights created by the ECHR effect in domestic law. UK legislation must be interpreted to be compatible with convention rights but parliamentary supremacy is preserved."
Hence, the ECHR can't do anything if we don't want to abide by it. It's got no teeth, so take your sarcastic eyes elsewhere plesh.
If the British Government doesn't want to do as the ECHR says, it wont. The ECHR is a dog without teeth because it has no means of enforcing its doctrine. It's endorsed by the ECJ under Article 6 but the ECJ is a dog without teeth as well. All it can do is impose a fine.
In 1951, the UK became a signatory to the ECHR but it was only in 1965 that citizens were given the right to even petition to the ECHR. And even then it wasn't part of domestic law until 1998 when we incorporated. What parliament enacts it can revoke. And if it can revoke it it doesn't have to be bound by its decisions. And even if a decision is binding its binding only in international law under the convention, and has no direct binding force in domestic law. The only way the ECHR can hope for it to be binding in its entirety is by relying on the willingness of the individual states who have signed up to it to follow and abide by its conventions and judgements.
We abide by it because we want to, not because we have to.
EDIT: In fact I'm going to quote a textbook to show you just how wrong you are.
Constitutional and Administrative Law by John Alder 7th Edition, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) p. 388
"The ECHR as such is not strictly binding upon English courts but can be taken into account where the law is unclear or where a judge has discretionary powers. The individual can petition to the European Court of Human Rights the decisions of which are binding in international law but unlike those of the European Court of Justice (In relation to European Union law) are not legally binding in domestic law.
The HRA 1998, while not incorporating the Convention as such, has given the main rights created by the ECHR effect in domestic law. UK legislation must be interpreted to be compatible with convention rights but parliamentary supremacy is preserved."
Hence, the ECHR can't do anything if we don't want to abide by it. It's got no teeth, so take your sarcastic eyes elsewhere plesh.
Last edited:
Soldato
Good!
I have put the relevant part in bold!
Swedish justice system allows ECHR to be binding in law. It's domestic law reflects that of the ECHR and as such the British court found that Assange's claim of his human rights being infringed is false.
Even in UK law many of the articles in the ECHR are also written into law in the UK (articles 1-12 for example are all legally binding under UK domestic Law). Any infringement of those articles found by the ECHR would also be binding under Swedish law.
HRA:
so unless the Swedish Govt (who have a more robust application of ECHR in their domestic law) are going to enact a law that allows Assange to be given an unfair trial before that trial takes place (do you think that is likely) and/or withdraw from the ECHR (again, likely?) He has no case to argue in respect that his Human Rights would not be protected under Swedish law.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu...sets/@dg/documents/digitalasset/dg_070456.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/3
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/crossheading/legislation
the European Communities Act 1972 makes provision in Section 2(1) for:
Basically if a Domestic Court doesn't wish to comply with a ECHR judgement, it must issue a "declaration of incompatibility", now as the articles in the ECHR and the HRA are identical in regard to "fair trial", how likely would it be that any court would issue such a declaration or that it would hold up under appeal if they did.
Governments may be able to ignore the ECHR, yet they cannot do the same to their own Domestic Courts and the same is true in Sweden. Assange's rights to a fair trial are protected by international and national laws in Sweden to an extent that the claim of an unfair trial is bogus. The British Court made the same judgement.
Of course any Government can chose to ignore or repeal anything they like, but the extradition procedure is looking at the likelihood that will happen, and are you seriously stating that Sweden would repeal a large section of it's domestic Human Rights legislation and withdraw from the ECHR with all the legal and political ramifications that would entail, simply to deny someone like Julian Assange his legal right to a fair trial?......really?
Last edited:
I'm not saying they will deny him a fair trial, I'm saying they could.
If they really wanted to extradite him to the US I'm sure they could. The ECHR and ECJ wouldn't necessarily do stuff all. They'd impose a fine and Sweden would probably just pay it with a back hander from the states.
You don't have to withdraw from the ECHR or the ECJ to break one of your promised obligations towards it. I don't go about saying "I'm going to withdraw myself from the UK legal system so that I can do what I want", I do it and take the consequences.Same for the UK, if we wanted to we could do likewise. So all that fluff about do I really think Sweden would repeal all its laws bla bla bla and enjoy all the political ramifications is a moot point. They get Assange, try him, fail as many expect, US meanwhile says can we have him please we've got a bone to pick, here we'll pay you too, they hand him over, ECJ and ECHR go oi what you doing. They go whoops, we're sorry, here's the money for the fine you'll impose on us. Whoopty do da.
My qualm isn't with his case in the Sweden, that's going to have to be public because of how high profile he is and so he will get a fair trial. It's what going to happen when they're finished with him. And I'm of the opinion that they will hand him over to the states regardless of what the ECJ and ECHR say.
If they really wanted to extradite him to the US I'm sure they could. The ECHR and ECJ wouldn't necessarily do stuff all. They'd impose a fine and Sweden would probably just pay it with a back hander from the states.
You don't have to withdraw from the ECHR or the ECJ to break one of your promised obligations towards it. I don't go about saying "I'm going to withdraw myself from the UK legal system so that I can do what I want", I do it and take the consequences.Same for the UK, if we wanted to we could do likewise. So all that fluff about do I really think Sweden would repeal all its laws bla bla bla and enjoy all the political ramifications is a moot point. They get Assange, try him, fail as many expect, US meanwhile says can we have him please we've got a bone to pick, here we'll pay you too, they hand him over, ECJ and ECHR go oi what you doing. They go whoops, we're sorry, here's the money for the fine you'll impose on us. Whoopty do da.
My qualm isn't with his case in the Sweden, that's going to have to be public because of how high profile he is and so he will get a fair trial. It's what going to happen when they're finished with him. And I'm of the opinion that they will hand him over to the states regardless of what the ECJ and ECHR say.
Their own extradition laws wouldnt allow them to for political or ideological reasons, neither would it allow them to extradite him if the sentence could include the death penalty.
So it is unlikely and thus is moot.