I don’t profess to be totally clued up on the Julian Assange situation and I think that, by and large, there appears to be little public opinion on the case – maybe because nearly 4 years of staying indoors doesn’t make for particularly exciting news.
However, today’s ruling by the UN panel has got him on the front pages again and I’m bemused as to how the UN can come to the ruling they did. As I see it, Assange is wanted in Sweden to answer allegations of a rape. The normal extradition paperwork has been done so he will be arrested by the UK police and extradited to Sweden. The wrinkle (albeit a pretty smart move by Assange) is that he is not technically in the UK whilst in the Ecuadorian embassy so if he stays there, he can’t be extradited.
This is the bit I don’t understand – how can hiding in a building on what is, in effect, Ecuadorian territory be considered as arbitrary imprisonment? If he was stuck in Brazil (a la Ronnie Biggs) would the same UN law apply?
Can any of the smart people on The Afterword explain the finer points to me? » Continue Reading.