Justice for all: WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the rights of the two women

“To radically shift regime behaviour we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not, “ Julian Assange.

Julian Assange is a 'war' hero in the battle of words and concepts, the argument for freedom of speech and the pursuit of various justices – however all sides, and there are many, in this war have their various heroes, some heralded like Julian, others not.

As intertwined as WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are nevertheless they are not one and the same; one has its origin in the other however with the umbilical cord cut comes the outright ownership of individual responsibility - and responsibilities are not transferable. WikiLeaks must be protected at all costs, its capacity for hyper dissemination is requisite for a world where the ability to discover the truth is outstripped by the capacity to manifest deceit. But despite the need to demarcate we must be reminded at all times that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are also one and the same, the vision intertwined and still sapling, its nurture crucial. At this time it appears Julian Assange may be extradited to Sweden to inevitably face the ordeal of prosecution under Swedish law for alleged non-consensual sex despite at this time the claim by the Prosecutor that the warrant is merely to ensure "questioning". Once the appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently to the European Human Rights Commission are done and dusted in this contemporary rights issues slugfest in that extradition to Sweden could mean his penultimate extradition to the United States of America it appears that time alone is the only restrain from the loom of major philosophical conversations that may well shake humanity's political landscape. For better or worse this is how humanity works - sluggishly and at times tempestuously, however grace, thanks to those who often give with great risk and expense, often arrives.

But no person should suffer unnecessarily, or without bona fide warrant, but this is the case, that many narratives under the sun are of ordeal, of suffering, of inhumanity, and that others remain complicit by silence.

It appears for some that a utilitarian philosophy has underlain much of the public emotion for Julian Assange – the founder of WikiLeaks – and for some it appears that this whelm of support has come at the expense of the rights of the two women he has been alleged to have "raped" and "molested" and whose rights Sweden’s Department of Prosecutions seeks to ferociously uphold even more so what the women question may seek to pursue. In fact are there questions of "rape"? No. Or about "consent"? It is all about a "broken condom". So why are some news media publishing stories around the premise of "rape"?

The two women continued in friendly relations it has been ascertained with Julian Assange post the alleged incidents. The first woman posted on her blog site just before going to a friend in the police that there are any number of ways to exact retribution against a lover who jilts.

Allegedly the two women met up. Allegedly they visited the Swedish police, one a friend of the first woman. Only the first lady eventually signed a police statement. But the news media has hounded Julian Assange as a "rapist" and has predominated its coverage around this allegation. It has not ferociously investigated WikiLeaks' hyper dissemination just prior these allegations of so-called classified "cables" and of the "Collateral Murder video" - where is the sustained coverage on the incident that saw near carefree US militia mow down civilians? It has petered into the ether as did random shootings and mass burials in the Panama (in pursuit of General Noriega) by US militia.

Should Julian’s extradition to Sweden be denied because of the scare-mongering that he could be extradited to the USA – and because of the belief that an American Grand Jury, behind closed doors, has spent thereabouts 12 months on binding a warrant for his extradition, sealed in an envelope? Let us remind ourselves, that Julian Assange has effectively been a wanted person, a fugitive of sorts in the theatre of public opinion and and in the circus of fair and unfair comment, by various spheres of influence in the USA for quite some time, and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the USA’s Justice Department have long considered filing charges against him – and let us remind ourselves that these considerations have been in effect prior to the raising of the very serious sexual misconduct allegations that thanks to many in the news media now dog him. Julian Assange has had to live a life near clandestine at times to thwart the manifest belief of potential arrest, and he has had to move about the world with the littlest of fanfare in order to resist the threat or loom of arrest - be it real or not.

For myself, the work of WikiLeaks is of heroic stuff, of a Homeric level, however it is fair comment when we consider the tensions of our times and the incumbent structures and the polity within which Julian Assange has moved where good meets bad, and all the shades in between, while many of us are confused with which way to go and what to do. Julian Assange's journey with WikiLeaks is not dissimilar to the Iliad and the Odyssey – that much he may not have wanted, however always would have known would be the case, would come his way and meet him head-on - the bad and the ugly, and not just the good. The paranoia like pursuit of him on the mongered threat of charges of treason, conspiracy, and myriad more is part of the territory he travails - it all comes with the territory that we have to live in this world and would always have appeared the majorly likelihood even before he took his first step at the dawn of the whole notion of it all. There is nothing new under the sun here.

I doubt that Julian Assange had never considered that someday he would be incarcerated as a political prisoner – a prisoner of conscience – surely he did, he is after all an intelligent and worldly person. He may have considered it his destiny while in being able to achieve some of his objectives; to challenge the pillars of the dominions that WikiLeaks was specifically and justly set up for.

However, allegations have been brought against him by two women, one in particular, it has been said, but the gauntlet of these allegations, with their origins in a cast of aspersions more so, has been run by a Swedish prosecutor, not by the women despite one of them having signed a statement. In terms of their rights, yes they have the right to speak out to an injustice. For these two ladies, logically any reasonably-minded person, any compassionate human being must imagine for them personal dishevelment and frustrations to have been intertwined with someone portrayed as a moral crusader however who allegedly disregarded their own physical, emotional and sexual rights and well-being that is under Swedish laws and mores.

They have their right to be heard, and to be respected and to be treated by the law and by public opinion as equal among others. But everyone has the right to question what is the truth despite allegations raised. Everyone has the right to cast serious doubts on the veracity of allegations raised, and especially so when someone has to flee a country, Sweden, for fear of persecution, for fear of the contrived, for fear of extradition. Everyone has the right to cast a suite of aspersions when all of a sudden the pursuit of Julian Assange also is the pursuit of WikiLeaks. When within days when an edifice of pressure is brought upon Mastercard, Visa and Paypal to cripple WikiLeaks, and they do so, financially crippling WikiLeaks, then people have the right to cast a suite of aspersions on the motives of all involved. Why is WikiLeaks targeted when it is Julian Assange that is sought for questioning? Because maybe it is WikiLeaks that is the obvious target.

In the plight to protect the rights of Mr Assange who has committed no crime, because no crime has been proven, no charges raised, Sweden, the Swedish Department of Prosecutions and Swedish law have been lampooned by various justifiable and non-justifiable hysteria in the world's news media and by WikiLeaks supporters – and much scaremongering has been unfairly bandied in reference to Sweden's ‘closed courts’ which are specifically set up to hear sexual misconduct allegations; however, indeed the ‘closed court’ set up for these types of allegations is to protect the rights of the victim, and believe it or not also of the alleged perpetrator – ‘the closed court’ is not a foreclosure of anyone’s rights and rather a protection of people's rights and particularly from the prejudices, biases and simplicity of the public domain - it protects people from the erosion of their very identity, their very person. But what may have happened because of a covert ferocious pursuit of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is that Swedish laws, the Swedish prosecutors and the Swedish "closed court" system have been misused, abused and compromised. Cultures of favour dispensation and crude but effective nepotism have been tapped into.

Should not the Swedish prosecutors have picked up a phone and talked to Julian Assange?

Should not the Swedish prosecutors have offered videoteleconferencing with Julian Assange rather than insist only that he must be returned to Sweden for questioning?

Is any of this unreasonable and especially in a climate of fear? Obviously of real fears when Strathco is brought into the light of day.

As long as these two women have wanted the allegations considered, though only one has apparently signed a statement, and where bona fide propriety permits hence pursued against Mr Assange and where the Swedish Prosecutors consign them weight, hence they are entitled to have their day in court – in Sweden and before Swedish law. But Julian Assange cannot face the the threat of extradition to the United States of America, from where it is more than likely he will never see the light of day again other than in a prison courtyard. Therefore Sweden should have provided extra-judicial assurances that he would not be extradited under any circumstance. And then his rights too, alongside the rights of the two women, would have considered. One cannot forego their natural rights for the rights of another, this only occurs in sacrifice and in martyrdom.

It is fair to comment that these women are not likely to be dupes of any wider conspiracy as they were known to Mr Assange, and they were known and part of WikiLeaks it has been said but is also fair to comment that people are often compromised, with great pressures brought upon them, and it is fair to comment that great deceits occur under the sun by what is humankind. It is fair to make the analogy of the pressures brought upon Mastercard, Visa and Paypal to withdraw services to WikiLeaks, and this has been evidenced, then therefore these same pressures may well place themselves upon individuals they select to target.

It is also fair not to trust an inflexible process when there are mitigating factors of a scale never-before-seen.

Various news media has argued various associations which cast legitimate aspersions however even the darkest pall of aspersions should not outrightly dismiss the rights of any person - assumptions and associations are often determined by degrees of separation and should not prohibit natural justice - procedural fairness.
Crikey reported various associations - Without an informed citizenry we cannot trust in the will of the people. Democracy depends on the will of the people but democracy does not exist as intended without the people being informed.

It may be argued as disgraceful to impugn these two women who were once associates of the person and the organisation. It is both sexist and discriminatory to do so. Should someone be protected from the rule of law because of who they are in terms of their station and should they be protected as if with some degree of immunity from various prosecution because of how the law may arguably impact unfairly on them and their practices? The arguments thus far against the imputation of the prospect of charges being heard in 'closed court' in Sweden would have been tenuous if not for Strathcor, if not for the fact that one of the women has not signed a statement, if not for WikiLeaks. The rights of the women matter as much as Julian's and therefore they cannot be separated as much as some cheap journalism has clearly done. Every jurisdiction, including the news media, and the various public institutions of the public domain must insist on demarcation between the various issues and the various rights-at-large but they must not disassociate what is also intertwined. The real prospect of Julian Assange extradited to the United States of America must stand above all other rights, for in terms of a measure of risk to any of the parties involved he indeed is burdened by the greatest threats to his natural rights. Therefore indeed his rights must be protected first and if this means prevail, then this must be the quantum.

It will be a grave wrong if Julian Assange is extradited from Sweden to the USA however if this were to happen then it would have always been inevitable that it would have occurred whether from Sweden or wherever in our world – at this time in human history the influence and reach of the United States is huge, immense and difficult to reproach, and it would have been the destiny of Julian Assange, in the brave challenges he has set up with Wikileaks, to continue on as a prisoner of conscience similar to Nelson Mandela and Aung San.

However even the prospect of a grave wrong by the Swedish government to belittle itself to any prospective warrant by the USA to have Mr Assange extradited should not by any means stand in the way, breach or contravene the rights of these two women. However, why should Julian Assange become a prisoner of conscience when the legal process may be compromised and therefore only to taint him, to discredit him, and hence to divide the peoples of our world?

If it were not for the allegations raised against him by Swedish prosecutors he may well be by now in various jurisdictional custodial predicaments in the USA or directly fighting extradition warrants on behalf of the USA's Justice Department. In all likelihood if we are to believe the imputations from what has been argued thus far if he is to return to Sweden and even if we are to consider the political landscape that predated the alleged incidents between Julian Assange and the two women then therefore penultimate extradition would have been unavoidable had not allegations by the two women, lawful within the prescription of their rights, been brought to the fore. The narrative took on a new chapter, however it is only an additional chapter, and the chapters that will come after have been written years ago – once the rights of the two women are upheld then the book will read as the original manuscript intended. However in the meantime opportunity was grasped by Mr Assange and many of his supporters, the blind and the wise, to highlight various issues not to do with the alleged injustices to the two women however with the cause that the metanarrative he is consumed by – the text between himself and the two women he has sacrificed for a little time, for the time being, probably much to the anguish of the women, in pursuit of his political calling, however he could arguably best serve the justice of the metanarrative when he returns to Sweden, faces either of the two women in ‘closed court’, if that prospect were to arise, and they speak their truths and justice and when this is done as best it can be under the rule of law, a law presumed without tampers, and we can only pray that the execution of the law will be fair which is always the intention (but not a reality), and hence he can continue unfettered with his role in the metanarrative – WikiLeaks and its pursuit of a just and civil humanity. If it were to be this story of untold great sacrifice, and hyper exposition by his sacrifice, presuming the extradition, then th cultural wave will build as it did in South Africa with the demolition of Apartheid and as it is in Burma. He may have to journey to the United States and play his role as a prisoner of conscience, or it may happen that he is never extradited to the USA, for what a stain shall it be on the USA and on Barack Obama if Julian Assange is extradited to the USA? But let us remind ourselves that more whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the current US administration than by any previous administration. Would he choose to go to the USA of his own free will and carry humanity with him - a cultural wave, a mass social movement? Would he face off with the American people and bring the focus of the world upon some of the instruments of the United States of America but once again let us remind ourselves that such a person is doing this, Bradley Manning. Yet his detainment has not served freedom as well as it could had he remained at-large within freedom. His detainment has stalled the hopes of our unfolding social justice vocabulary. Julian Assange best serves humanity at-large within freedom, and he best serves humanity through WikiLeaks, not incarcerated and oppressed.

JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE has won one major award after another – the ones that matter, and he has won the admiration of many and will win many more admirers long after his narrative is done, long after he is gone. In an unfolding human rights language, with much of it yet undefined, Julian Assange has contributed heroically and with the immense risks alongside his great sacrifices, and with the real threat of martyrdom.

WikiLeaks is the citizen media that many knew would soon arrive once the super information highway (the Internet) was unleashed, and we all knew that it only needed someone like a Nelson Mandela and Aung San to do so.

WikiLeaks has published materials, many of them "classified", about the Iraq and Afghan wars, further exposed Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib atrocities, revealed extrajudicial killings in Kenya, toxic waste dumping in Cote d’Ivoire, Church of Scientology manuals, and of the improprieties of banks like Kaupthing, Goldmann Sachs and of Julius Baer. WikiLeaks challenged the most powerful nation on this earth, the USA, by publishing its diplomatic cables.

Was this a crime by WikiLeaks? No. But various legislation has been created to have us believing it is a crime. There is legislation purely intended to deny the ordinary citizen, therefore the majority of humanity, the right to understand the national interest, and most certainly to prohibit them from contributing to the definition of the national interest, let alone the interests of so-called global village.

In 2009 Mr Assange won the Amnesty International Media Award, he was 2010 TIME magazine’s Person of the Year, and the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism recipient. He has also been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Julian Assange was born 1971, in Townsville, Queensland. The diversity of his ancestry makes him a citizen of the world – Diogenic – his surname is an Anglicisation of Cantonese heritage “Ah Sang”. At 16 years of age he was a computer hacker under the name “Mendax” and with two others formed “International Subversives”. Their prescribed policy was, “Don’t damage computer systems you break into; don’t change the information in those systems and share information.” The Australian Federal Police (AFP) uncovered the hacking and they were charged and fined. Though he never said, it was revealed that at the time of his prosecution he provided Victoria Police Child Exploitation Unit with technical advice.

WikiLeaks was founded in 2006 and Julian Assange outlined its philosophy with the following, “To radically shift regime behaviour we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not.”

He also said, “The more secretive or unjust an organisation is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie… Since unjust systems, by their nature, induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.”

WikiLeaks has released more classified documents than the rest of the world press combined.

In the pursuit of perspective and in the pursuit of truth, in the pursuit of change agency, let us fall back on the facts – before the August 2010 allegations of so-called sexual rape and various misconduct raised against Julian Assange, the greater pursuit of his arrest because he is WikiLeaks predated. This is self-evident despite Strathco, despite Grand Juries, despite all that we now know and understand. It is understood that in June 2010 Pentagon officials were seeking the whereabouts of Julian Assange, who had been effectively forced into moving from country to country in near-clandestine-like ways.

Speculation had been rife after the arrest of Bradley Manning that Julian Assange would need to be brought before a Court to give testimony. It has been said that Julian Assange himself was concerned that he was one step away from being arrested.

On November 28, 2010, WikiLeaks released some of the 251,000 American diplomatic cables, of which 53% were unclassified, 40% confidential, 6 % classified. The response from Australia came from then Attorney-General Robert McClelland that it appeared that what Mr Assange may have done was illegal and that his office would investigate and he warned that if Mr Assange returned to Australia he could face charges and even went as far as not ruling out the possibility that his Australian passport would be cancelled! The Prime Minister Julia Gillard backed up Mr McClelland, however the AFP found that Mr Assange had not done anything illegal. The US Justice Department launched criminal investigations and has reportedly considered charges.

Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who released Pentagon papers, said “(Julian Assange) is serving our democracy and serving our rule of law precisely by challenging the secrecy regulations, which are not laws in most cases, in this country.” He continued, “I think (Julian Assange’s) instincts are that most of this material deserves to be out. We are arguing over a very small fragment that doesn’t. He has not yet put out anything that hurt anybody’s national security.”

Many within the news media recognise Julian Assange as a journalist – WikiLeaks won a Walkley last year. Alan Dershowitz said, “Without a doubt, he is a journalist, a new kind of journalist.”

The release of Australian government briefings, copping them on the hop, evidenced that the government had discussed in secret the charging of Julian Assange with treason. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has never disclosed this and had limited herself to underwriting any future prospect of this occurring with describing his actions “as illegal”. However to be fair to the Australian government there are ministers who have said it appears he did not do anything illegal, and this includes Dr Craig Emerson, and similarly with members of the Coalition. The Coalition’s Senator George Brandis said, “As far as I can see, he has not broken any Australian law, nor does it appear he has broken any American laws.”

Julian Assange has said that he will contest a seat for the Australian Senate, and similarly he will have a candidate contesting the seat of Lalor, the Prime Minister’s seat in a direct challenge to her. Whether or not Julian Assange and others alongside him are elected – effectively a WikiLeaks Party – they will most certainly do well in the voting. Julian Assange is a very real chance of being elected to the Australian Senate given the opportunity to do so.

After WikiLeaks released classified documents about the Aghan war, US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairperson, Mike Mullen said, “Disagree with the war all you want, take the issue with policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we have been given, but do not put those who willingly go into harm’s way even further in harm’s way just to satisfy your need to make a point. Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”

Julian Assange responded to the comments, “There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that.”

In December 2010, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank LaRue said (WikiLeaks) should not face criminal charges for any information they disseminated. He said that “transparency works” and eliminates “corruption.”

I was at various rallies last year and earlier this year when supporters of WikiLeaks argued the rights of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and they argued them in terms of freedom of speech, in terms of the greater good, the common good however I was disappointed, very disappointed, and I intervened, when on several occasion I saw protestors, self-professed rights activists, in support of Mr Assange however trying to turn away Women's Rights activists and campaigners from Reclaim the Night who had turned up in their own silent protest with banners supporting the rights of the two women. The common good is about everyone - and I know that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks knows this, they live and breathe it; we should not demean the cause, the metanarrative, the narrative, the texts and sub-texts - we need to be on the same page however demarcated the issues may appear and are, but in the end many remain intertwined.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed to Voltaire

The fear of those who prosecute whistleblowers like there is no tomorrow is that many more of them may be in the wings. We can only hope so, but we too must lead the way, and speak our minds and stand alongside the truth. It is important to be a good human being at all times.


WikiLeaks: 544 days of banking blockade - no process
Assange: 541 days detainment - no charge
Manning: 738 days in jail - no trial
Grand Jury: 624 days US secret Grand Jury into WikiLeaks - no transparency
We are forced to put all our efforts into raising funds to ensure our economic survival. For almost a year we have been fighting an unlawful financial blockade. We cannot allow giant US finance companies to decide how the whole world votes with its pocket


FOREIGN Minister Bob Carr has rejected criticism the Government has done nothing to help Julian Assange fight his extradition from the UK to Sweden

ANNA Ardin is, as alleged in numerous reports, the woman who claims Wikileaks founder Julian Assange sexually molested her

Sex claim women in Julian Assange case say this is nothing to do with the Pentagon

Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called “sex by surprise” or “unexpected sex"

The shielding of sex-crime accusers is a Victorian relic. Women are moral adults and should be treated as such

Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity

n discussing rape allegations against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, Moore appeared to dismiss the accusations as “hooey” (although he was actually referring to what he views as the use of the allegations as a pretext to silence Assange), and repeated the false claim that Assange is only accused of having a condom break during consensual sex

Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed classified material to the whistleblower website, WikiLeaks


I stand for due process. I stand for a nation of fair and just laws. I believe the public deserves to know the truth

As WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces extradition to Sweden to be questioned over an alleged sexual assault, world-renowned feminist Naomi Wolff has come to the whistleblower’s defense

We are of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions

Then in late May, Assange vanished. The reason soon emerged. The story did not attract much media attention, but the Pentagon on May 26 had arrested US Army Private Bradley Manning, 22, on charges of illegally downloading hundreds of thousands of classified US documents, including—reports said at the time—a trove of State Department cables on Iraq and Afghanistan

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world



This is a well considered article and you are the first I have read to take into account of the women. I agree with you for justice for all.

Thanks Edson, the whole purpose of WikiLeaks is justice for everyone (equality) - accountability and transparency as mechanisms. This is what they're achieving and are supported increasingly so by a social movement of peoples. Often much gets diluted and people pitted against people which in part deafens the core pursuits of equality however as many voices conversing helps ease the struggle.

It's a great article one which understands the spirit of Wikileaks and everything that Julian Assange is about. The truth will only be won out by respect for everyone and not by shifting attention.

how dare freedom of speech campaigners try to turn the RTN and feminists? what sheer hypocrisy? it made my blood boil, well done mate with what you've written


The group of activists and supporters who tried to turn away other activists and supporters of another line of thinking and set of arguments should not have done so - the RTN and others had every right to be there and every right to pitch their case and every right to be included in the conversation, and what smacked of irony was indeed that in the pursuit of freedom of speech they did everything in that moment that were all about in being against...

The whole point of Julian's and WikiLeak's journalism is that are about equality, equal among others, the truth by conversation and dissemination and some supporters strangely pit themselves rather than understand the conversation - this often happens endemically and skews whole social justice movements and indeed revolutions - we aren't perfect, we're flawed in many ways, and this is accepted.

I think the unfolding human rights language is, and will, bring us together.

Alison there is a lot of ignorance in the world, we have too many rushing in all black and white on the issues tormenting us with their one sided bigotry or salvation and the rank hypocrisy of turning away feminists just stinks so bad and the cause is not served but destroyed, this is the major problem of the left wing movement, it destroys itself through the ignorance of those who hold to it but never study it and then they scream obscenities at those who are more left than them but argue them as if they are on the right or conservative

Wikileaks would not readily accept half those supporting them as being on the same page with them but then things take their time and their cost

As a career feminist I know what it's like to see some of the people who say they are part of the cause

All said I'll be at the rallies for Assange because it is about him verse the imperial giant, the USA, and like the writer of the article I want to see the rights of people, the women in this, respected

Yes, well written Gerry, you are always on the mark and from all sides with every issue

Thanks Marcel, I don't know if I'm always on the mark, there would be many folk, and including readers and commentators on this site who would think otherwise, however I try to be as much part of conversations as possible, I think this is important or a contribution to our unfolding human rights and social justice languages - in the small way just as one person - the lived experience - and if we look at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks they are doing this, their part in the conversation, admirable large-scale, huge-scale, en masse, with great courage and bled by front line challenge and let us remind ourselves that often the frontiers are both scary and ugly.

interesting perspective, i think you are actually right when you think about
he shouldn't be extradited i think but i see what you're pointing out about destiny and responsibility

You are right - my contribution is only a perspective, not necessarily a truth or the way anything should be or will be - they are my antecedents and suppositions remembering that premises can shift and change. I am just part of the conversation, mulling things over from what I see... what struck me most is what WikiLeaks is about and not necessarily what it is doing - underlain is that we are equal among others, that this is about equality and the very premise for the various calls to shift the paradigms...

I think that WikiLeaks has not only challenged regime and monopolies of power, they have also got many of us thinking about who we are and in relation to each other.

Freedom for Julian Assange.
This website is focusing on somethings that have nothing to do with Julian's journalism and a lot to do to confuse the reader.

The Rally's tonight were people strong, and that wont ever go away from here on in.

Freedom for Juilan Assange.

I disagree with you in that this article is confusing - and indeed I argue alongside you that the article is intended to achieve that which you impute and that is the focus on citizen media journalism, dissemination in the public interest and support for the objectives of WikiLeaks - and right throughout the article the argument is the need to demarcate issues - it is exactly this.

However, in order to demarcate issues one must recognise them, acknowledge them and respect them and remember everything that is underlain in pursuit of whatever we support or try to understand - in the argument for the need to be equal among others I recognise that there are also two women, with their rights, which are indeed all our rights, however that they not be lost in a vacuum of inhumanity purportedly pursuant of humanity and rather that demarcation ensure the propriety of equal among others while protecting freedom of speech, equal rights for all, protecting the objectives of WikiLeaks, the work of Julian Assange, everything that WikiLeaks is about and that is to challenge those that would keep us in the dark by bringing them into the light of day.

If what I have written is confusing for you then we have quite some conversation to go, for all of us.

Indeed it good to note that the mass of people at rallies is significant and I am one of the mass, however hopefully that mass, which I believe does, recognises that we are all equal and that the way forward is justice - the means to any end will become the end in itself.

Hopefully we will see each other in the faces of those who will make up the cultural waves, and indeed that we will recognise each other in the many faces that we will see.


You are very wrong, I think this is one of the more incredible websites in the spirit of Wikileaks and it's you who maybe confused not the author or many of the readers and bloggers. Great people were at the rally, I went to one too and will go again and yes Freedom for Julian Assange, for everyone, that is what he, you, and I want and should always want. If you want to focus on Julian's journalism only which the writer did a good job of then no one should disrepute and defame the women because I have read the Crikey article posted in the article and I have read many accusations against them but they are all tenuous, they are nothing that earth shattering to tell us that what they claim never happened. Come on everyone get a little respect for ourselves, the allegations may not be true but we do not know this and only three people know for sure and all the rest is as the writer of the article describes and we should not be so black and white.
Freedom to everyone. I want Julian to keep us his good work with Wikileaks and the rest of us to respect the rights of people. Aaaargggghhhh!!!!! did I really have to write this in this day and age?

Your article is longer than necessary. Lots of pretty words but he is a criminal and financed by somebody. I have no use for him and he can rot somewhere. I just heard him in an interview with occupyers and he is a sick man. He has deep mental issues from his childhood. He must have been rejected by his parents or siblings or his dog that needs so much attention and sicks destruction to something that is not perfect but works in the world and he sees as a treat. I'm no psychiatrist but it is obvious from just a fairly educated person like me.

Editor's note: I have cut personal abuse out of this post.

Cheryl, Gerry is too kind in his response to you, how can you judge someone in the way you have when you don't know him? Who cares about his childhood or his personal issues, this is all not about any of that, it is about his rights, the rights of the free press, the rights of Wikileaks, the lives we can save from war, it is about governments who cheat the people and like Gerry writes it is about everyones rights including the rights of the women who are supposed to be at the heart of all this but they are not really and I think this is what Gerry is writing about in his very timely piece, the real enemy is the enemy within - our governments and their not speaking to us.

He is not a criminal.

Freedom for Julian.

Let Wikileaks thrive.

And thank you for this article Gerry and the debate you've started.

Well Cheryl, firstly you and I are not psychiatrists or psychologists however this is not majorly important - you are entitled to your observations, views and premises.

We are all the product of various determinism, hard and soft, of the way we hit the world and the circumstances that we are spent in till we become who we are and at best try to understand and manage some of the circumstances however difficult to demarcate from them. We are all flawed, we are all perfect in that, however flaws are both weaknesses and strength and rarely should be totally prohibitive of us positively contributing and in having something to give.

I don't think it is a fair judgment to cast far too many aspersions on the person about why he is about what he is about and I think it would be fair instead to look at what the person is about, the content of the work, and what comes from the content of that work. I demarcate the circumstances of people from the content of their work, their contributions and understand us within these terms.

We should also rarely assume of others, often assuming leads us to no good end and rather focus on that from which we can legitimately know more from, such as from a work itself - such as WikiLeaks, the body of its work, the purpose of its objectives, the outcomes from this body of work, and in this we can have and sustain a legitimate conversation where the positive outweighs the negative, where it can be about the common good rather than about each other or potshots at the other or in the making of otherness, and instead just be "us" just like on this thread.

My views, would love to read what you have to write on this Cheryl,

The whole issue about Julian Assange is about Julian Assange, not Gerry.

No one who thinks and has a social conscience can abide this remarkable man going to prison for crimes he did not commit.

One of the women of two retracted her statement of rape, and then went backwards. What does that say.
The other is a politician trying to rise her way, the destructive way.

I don't think this site should be all about commending Gerry, when Julian's fate stands looming before us all.
He is such a selfless man and has done so much great wotk for our world. Gerry's article talks of human rights of two women amongst other fine things, yet that 'two women; bit draws people to think of what is not truth.
Truth is what Julian Assange stands for, and what the people have every right to know about.

I agree the piece written by Gerry is too long winded, and commend the good in it.

I also think the hate culture person who wrote 'Julian is a criminal' is saying what he's heard or has hate and needs help not vice versa as he surely can't think at all.

The cultures of contempt for our fellow man were one of the reasons Julian embarked on his amazing works.
Who wants more cruel speak about someone presently in a very precarious and vulnerable position.

I wish Julian all the best and may the technicality found in the hearing lead to a just and freedom giving second appeal for Julian.

This is about one man Julian Assange.
It's good Gerry wrote about the injustices against Julian, just have no idea why he started talking about the rape cases as they are more than probably not real.
Consenting adults, not adolescents.
Hicks was there at the Rally saying this, do we need a repeat of that? No.


ARRRGGGHHHH Bronwyn what are you writing? Were you there? How can you write of one of your own like that and call them liars? Everyone has rights, everyone is capable of the truth and everyone is capable of lying? What is wrong with some people?

Yes, freedom for Julian, I do not want to see him rot in some bullshit American jail, I want to see him keep up the work he does but let us understand as Gerry points out that the rights of these women should not be torn to shreds because he is a saint and icon, his work is and maybe he is not, maybe he is innocent but I understood Gerry's writing in this way, let us support him, freedom of speech, the right to change the world but not at the expense of the rights of the women.

I think Gerry has nailed every point and has respected Julian all along the way.

Bronwyn how on the one hand can you write of Julian as selfless, when no human is selfless, and on the hand these women are just liars? when we are all capable of truth and lies?

I am so saddenned by the twisted logic and the leash politics.

Just so angry at the comment that the rape cases are not real, just so angry to see that written. It doesn't matter, like Gerry writes separate what needs to be separated and what needs to be cleared up then where that can happen let it happen.

We are still in the cave.

Bronwyn, your comments were pretty low on women, I hope you aren't a man behind the name Bronwyn! and I hope you think again before undermining the cause of feminism and the centuries to win some rights for us on the road to equality sister.

The Facts about the two women and more re. Julian Assange whose head is on the chopping block, not Gerrys.

* The rape allegation against Assange was inititally dropped, deemed so weak it didn't warrant investigation. It was revived after the intervention of the Swedish politician close to American diplomats. (note the closeness)
*If extradited to Sweden, Assange could be quickly and secretly sent on to the US under a legal device known as "temporary surrender".
* Recently released stratfor emails suggest that a US grand dury in Virginia is preparing to charge Assange, possibly under the century-old Espoionage Act, which can carry the death penalty.

You Gerry, do not have that looming over you, and your entourage of glory fans are trying to make you some hero when this is at this time all about the life (or not) of Julian Assange. Your article is too cerebral unlike Julian Assange's journalism.

Shame on being so cerebral about all this, and shame on the hateful commentor who seeks blood, and wants one of his or her fellow man destroyed when Julian's done all this good for humanity.

Whoever wrote Freedom for Julian Assange, I agree.

Thanks Indy.
Wont be looking at this site again due to the 'hate' comment' that has no place in truth journalism.
Where's the 'moderation' to disallow such cruel and bloodthirsty rubbish from anon.

Brian Adams

More rubbish to drive people mad. How dare you say slag everyone who has something reasonable to write and then say you will shun this site because of it, what sort of freedom of speech is this? You're a sham supporter and when you march in the rallies for Freedom you know you are sham.

Indy does more for debate and stories that need to be heard than most others, just like Wikileaks.

You don't know anything about the rape allegations or the investigations just what you read and if you think that Gerry wasn't supporting Julian Assange and for him not to be extradited to the USA then you're dumb. If you think this guy is being 'cerebral' then we'll just stay ignorant and not think too much eh?

It's people like Gerry, the cerebral types that Julian needs arguing more of and not simple rants that governments and high court justices will not listen to, the more people like Gerry that drive home the facts and the reality the more people we get on side to protect the rights of Julian and Wikileaks, of all of us.

I'd rather have a Gerry on my side, a Robertson, a Pilger on my side than a 100 idiots in a march for me while the midday or afternoon crowds just walk right by.

Freedom for Julian yes and let us understand why.

Brian, it is immature and childish to pompously threaten a site like Indymedia that you won't grace them again with your readership just because they've posted an article you don't entirely agree with, how childish!

Also your comments to Gerry about it's not his head on the chopping block are utter diatribe and just ridiculous - the man has written a damn good piece and it's obvious he is not bias or agenda driven just thinking which is what we need and he is so obviously pro-Wikileaks.

What's your problem Brian?

Your commenting on 'truth journalism' well what can comment about something like this, it's just too naive to believe you'd push this? Who are the truth journalists? Fair dinkum mate, do you think in terms of truth, in the objective, in the subjective? Don't be silly mate.

Your truth is the Stratfor emails that 'suggest' but the Swedish judiciary and the allegations are 'conspiracy' and you know one truth from another of course.

We are all behind protecting Julian Assange whatever the truth is or the whole story and bloody hell Gerry made this quite obvious in his article and to be honest I very much appreciated the long article because I learned more about everything than I knew before, he put it all together quite well and never waivered from his support of freedom of speech and protecting Julian from extradition whatever Julian's destiny might be.

We don't need schoolyard activists and 'truth journalism', we need transparency, information and thinking people. Julian is all about us being shephards and not the sheep mate.

At long last, finally, finally someone has written something that gets everyone across the line. Many of us have been beaten down by all this, we support Wikileaks, we don't want Assange extradited on allegations of treason or anything to do with Wikileaks but it has not been right for women to be discounted like they have been. I'll got to the rallies for Julian in for him not to be extradited to the USA but I will not support any outrage and typecasting of the women. Mr Georgatos is the first author of anything on this sordid nightmare to have regarded the rights of everyone, and to those few on this site and on other sites who have an issue with Mr Georgatos writing about the rights of these women then the entire feminist movement is being pushed back a step. I wouldn't care who it was, be it Kevin Rudd that allegations are raised again they need to be heard.

To those who write that the allegations are imaginary well that is just disgusting, whether they are or are not is not for you to say, lead us out of hell I say and not back into it.

Like Mr Georgatos I will be at the rallies for Assange and I will support the great work he does but I support women's rights and equality first.


I agree with Janette, you hearten me with what you wrote

from Almost Despairing Roger (thank you once more)

good to see so many people care

I've been in touch with John Pilger and I know a lot about the rape cases, and what was written by Brian Adams holds vital truths to my associates and self.
You can agree to disagree, but don't dare bully your way and deny freedom of speech to anyone.
Brian Adams was not doing this nor was another who made a comment about the post being longwinded and cerebral.

Julian Assange has spirit and does not like feeling-less, unempathic voices, he's with empathy and feeling en masse, and this shows in his unauthorised biography and all his journalism and Wikileaks.

Whose 'slagging' who. Bully terminoly doesn't sit well when we're meant to be discussing the fate of one remarkable man and Wikileaks.

This is about Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
The more certain people put down others comments when they are not hateful, simply disagreeing with some aspects, the more they discredit themselves.

Hate comments on this or any other post are purposeless and destructive. Julian Assange stands for anything but being destructive, he's creative, as was Brian Adams voice, and no doubt Gerry's when you leave out the surperfluos lengthy bits. Agree to disagree, your right.
Many people have diverse views and the only ones that should be kncoked are those that are as one person said "Blood thirsty hate rantings" in his or her words.

If Indy allows these hate comments that's Indy's choice, however, they stand as hate speeches when they are 'blood thirsty' and want Julian to suffer, further, even face the death penalty (outrageous) nonetheless.

In hope for Julian Assange
Michael, family, friends & associates
Balmain NSW

Hi Michael, we all work in hope for the rights of Julian and WikiLeaks, and we all work in the hope that everything WikiLeaks is about that indeed it will continue to be about.

Many like yourself do everything you can for Julian, and so do others, I too.

I agree with many of your comments and sentiments.

We all agree on freedom of speech.

The negative and the obscene signify their intentions.

Indymedia does have a policy and the suite of Editors do moderate the posts.

I think most of us are all on the same page, and there is no need to for anyone to attack anyone especially when most of us are effectively agreeing with each other and pursuing the same objectives.

I don't mind criticism, it comes with the territory and I am loathe to have it censored. In various capacities and in my various hats I am often criticised and lampooned - however I accept what appears malice so loathe am I to deviate to the contentions of censorship.

Something that Sarah wrote about 'hegemony' is important and we cannot all demand of each other blind trust or make claims and accept these claims are underlain by what is in effect an investiture in trust and goodwill - in that we know some know more than others whether this is due to inside knowledge or due to various expertise or because we may be in touch with others who are in the know.

I believe that some readers have misunderstood the article, however that is actually alright to do so, the reader works with what is before them and we are entitled to our varying interpretations coupled by the lens that we have. I never expect anyone to necessarily understand what I'm trying to say or write, nor in the event when they do understand exactly what I am saying or writing do I expect them to agree with me - this is freedom of speech, freedom to think, and the right to a conversation.

I believe that we must acknowledge that we do live in a world where the ability to discover the truth is outstripped by the ability to manifest deceit - however as humanity continues to unfold the aspiration is that this may well change.

Of course I am with freedom for Julian Assange, the objectives and aspirations of WikiLeaks, and that all people should be treated equal and that there can be no moving away from these - and I am fervent in the belief that whatever the future holds, which may not be what we want nor what we are campaigning for at this time, that we will not shift from the will and the warrant to do what is right - and at all times.

I hope I made some sense however I am sure that someone will let me know very soon indeed that I did not! So be it.

Kindly, Gerry Georgatos

yeah life is always more complex than what we are always portrayed through television and newspapers and the news cycle and it's important if we're going to keep on going progressively forward with patriarchy dismantled and hegemony challenged and the powers that be brought before freedom of speech that we discuss everything like it is cerebral, like it is complex then we'll keep on going forward, there is no need to dumb down life to simple one liners

To the person who contemptuously tried to denigrate the commentor who wrote they will shun this site when there is Hate Comments. That's fair enough. Leave that person alone, they are free to choose.
I agree with you for feeling like shunning some of this, I wont shun the site but you're not a sham at all, nor a slag, what vitriol from who?

This is for the commentor whose comment title is
'You don't know anything about rape charges'.

I'd say you probably know a whole lot more than the vitriolic person who wrote that comment.
I support your comment.
I remain a supporter of Indy also, not all it's commentors.


THE United States has denied it is secretly preparing legal action against Julian Assange as supporters of the WikiLeaks founder explore fresh legal moves to stop his extradition to Sweden to face questioning over rape allegations

Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian publisher, and internet activist. He is best known as the spokesperson and editor-in-chief for WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website. Before working with the website, he was a physics and mathematics student as well as a computer programmer. He has lived in several countries and has told reporters he is constantly on the move. He makes irregular public appearances to speak about freedom of the press, censorship, and investigative reporting; he has also won several journalism awards for his work with WikiLeaks

Julian Assange said you have to start with the truth because the decision making that is based on lies doesn't get us anywhere.

We don't care about extraditing Julian Assange, says US Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich

Julian Assange: I grew up in Australia in the 1970s. My parents were in the theatre, so I lived everywhere—in over fifty different towns, attending thirty-seven different schools. Many of these towns were in rural environments, so I lived like Tom Sawyer—riding horses, exploring caves, fishing, diving, and riding my motorcycle. I lived a classical boyhood in this regard. But there were other events, such as in Adelaide, where my mother was involved in helping to smuggle information out of Maralinga, the British atomic bomb test site in the outback. She and I and a courier were detained one night by the Australian Federal Police, who told her that it could be said that she was an unfit mother to be keeping such company at 2:00 a.m., and that she had better stay out of politics if she didn’t want to hear such things

and Gerry, good work with the article and the thread that's been generated - power to everyone

Does any one care about the women in Sweden?I think Julian should be made to face court on his charges or do you all think the women were asking for it?

"A prosecutor in Sweden has taken out a European arrest warrant which is an extreme measure to interview someone," she said.

"The whole 16 months he's been under house arrest with ankle monitors and strict curfews, she's refused to question him at Scotland Yard or the Swedish embassy.

"If she really wanted this case cleared up she would have questioned him.

"It would appear very obvious to anyone looking closely at the case, or not so closely at the case, that the Swedish prosecutor is not interested in clearing up the sex allegations, all they're interested in doing is holding Julian in once place."


Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr says no one has received more consular support in a comparable period than Mr Assange, which is a statement Ms Assange strongly rejects.

She said the Federal Government had declined written requests to ask for bail for Mr Assange if he was taken into custody in Sweden, to grant him safe passage home to Australia from the UK, or to serve any prison sentences in Australia.

"They're absolutely useless, all they do is book themselves seats to watch what's going on," said Ms Assange

The mother of Julian Assange, the founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, has warned that her son is being framed over sexual assault allegations.
Speaking to Australia’s ABC North Coast NSW, Christine Assange said, “The facts show that Julian is being framed and because I’m able to prove that, that gives me extra anger over what’s happening and justice is a very good fueller of action and strength.”
In an interview with ABC’s Joanne Shoebridge, Assange clarified her assertion of her son’s innocence. She said, “I’m not just fighting for Julian because he’s my son [but because] I’ve investigated this case probably more than any other journalist in Australia because I’m his mother and I have the time and the interest.”

Sarah and certain others seem to want to make 'comments' that have no substance only seeking to ridicule other people's comments. People have a right to say what they need to, and with facts where they can, but not just write 'this is or that comment is 'Childish'. Absurd Sarah.
What's the point, none.
You're wasting this page.
Gerry's article about "Mother Christine ......' is very good.
The earlier hate writings about Julian deserving a tragic fate is contemptuous and everyone has a right to point that out. Every conscionable one has so far on other sites.

The two women having rights, of course, yet no rape cases proven, and these have not been, have ever incurred a possible death sentence, or sending the 'assumed by only certain people, at this time rapist' to Guantanamo Bay, one of the very places Julian Assange courageously exposed as horrific and torturous beyond all torture.
The very place David Hicks was tortued at.

There's something wrong when a site shows comments that are merely throwing stones at other comments, and the article is not creatively argued in a reason-able manner, without the 'slag' throwing. This doesn't mean Gerry's article is wrong, it's the non-substance comments that want to throw stones at anyone who disagrees who are suppressing valid voices.

I have no doubt Julian, John Pilger and left and right with social consciences don't abide suppression of voices, except where they are destructive.

Sensitivity is needed at this time for and with Julian Assange, and support.

The two women have their lawyers too and a whole lot of American and other support. Bit sad in my eyes, as the facts I've had explained to me by lawyers, Jon and many others speak of something different to feminist principles.

I take exception regarding comments on any blog: when the comments are as hateful, vengeful and yes 'blood thirsty' as the one which sought Julian's downfall. I too thought that was highly distateful, calling him a criminal just as ourt dear PM did time ago. Shame.

All the best Indy

I think we are all agreeing with each but in the freedom of speech we are arguing about the fine details in trying to ram home our arguments, often the same argument we all share.

Gerry's article is about rights for everyone without exception, equality without exception or it isn't equality, the truth without fail or it isn't the truth and that there are forces out there that we are all challenging and these are huge forces without guarantee that we can beat them down. He does not believe that Assange should be extradited to the USA and is utterly against it but like all of us sees that this is a real possibility. Isn't it a real threat despite how much we fight as a global movement to protect him from this?

I like his means to an end arguments and the food for thought on so many ideas while at the same we arm ourselves with even more knowledge to fight as best as we can and not as least as we can by being only froth at mouth. Julian fights with the power of his words and not from the barrel of a gun, he fights with knowledge and more knowledge on that pile of knowledge. This has got him and the cause he is about that many of you adore so far. Because of this like Gerry writes about 'conversation' then there is a conversation and world wide we are having these conversation about our world because of the knowledge Julian has brought to us.

The bloggers who think anything should be one-sided or simple one liners or who want to define censorship from the 'inciteful' well that actually holds us back and the two way thing is fine despite hurtful and stupid comments. But you cannot delete the one-sided and simple one liners because we risk then being left with monologue, idolatry and nothing to challenge us.

The comments that bother me the most aren't the stupid ones that everyone can see what they are about or the slagging that everyone can see the dumbness, for me the comments on this thread that bother me the most or disappoint me even if they are true are the ones that claim inside knowledge, that the anonymous posters with their dubious spelling mistakes write they have spoken with John Pilger and lawyers who are working on the case and then whether true or not these anonymous bloggers want us to believe them, I find this a little arrogant and exactly what Wikileaks is not about and Wikileaks is about getting us the truth through evidence and not just a demand we blindly trust like our Prime Minister keeps on wanting from us, she refuses to evidence many things and wants our blind trust like so many before her and like so many all over the world.

Lets move from the trivial and stop slowing down causes, lets consider everything and everyone and then the revolutions will not be wasted.

I'm surprised at some of the criticism at the basic and natural rights that we should have for anyone, not just the fact they are women, just as anyone argues for the rights for Julian and the right to his innocence in the face of the possibility of lies and conspiracy so too are entitled the two women, Anne Ardin and the other one also in the face of what is being said about them is lies and conspiracy, how can one argue for one person and not another? how can one argue it's all one way? I think Gerry Georgatos has written the most beautiful and considered article on this whole affair and taken into account everyones rights while damning the forces that seek to end free speech and our right to know as he well writes. I will not be led like a sheep and patriarchy did that for long enough and we should never be led blindly. I agree with the writer who wrote of her disappointment, which I share, in all those who pop up on this site and write they have spoken to so and so or John Pilger, so what? and even if a good man like John Pilger wrote on this site and professed Julian's innocence this does not mean that I should take it for granted then and dismiss the rights of the two young women.

Thank you Gerry for a well balanced article, the only one I have read anywhere in which you respect everyones rights, Julian's, Wikileak's, both women's, and our's.

With deep respect, Rose

The window under the word "Subject:" is accessible to you.

It would save the editors a lot of time.


As somebody who came into close contact with Julian Assange many years ago & had a opportunity to read his early rhetoric I am disgusted to see how he is being treated. Julian Assange, myselg & Mike Carlton the original founder of wikipedia & indymedia were all assaulted by the the so called forebearers of the Law.

Dear fellow imperialistic Internet dictators . . .

ID, Internet Dictators think they are part of some global superior technocracy & they can
dictate their ridiculous terms & propoganda to other poor helpless souls, its basically
a joke & has nothing to do with real freedom of speech or humanity, get a real job & help each other
out, be part of a real team & take your time with so called technology, technology can be developed
or technology can be scrapped, its up to you to play your part & don't be scared to get
your hands dirty.

I don't understand some of the commentators and what they are on about however Gerry you pointed everyone in the right direction, respect for everyone yes is the key - damn right!


Assange seeks asylum from Ecuador - AAP
Updated June 20, 2012, 7:46 am


WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange has turned to leftist Ecuador for political asylum, claiming Australia won't protect him from extradition to the United States where he could face the death penalty.

Assange walked into Ecuador's embassy in London overnight and asked for asylum under the United Nations Human Rights Declaration.

The move comes less than a week after Britain's Supreme Court rejected the 40-year-old Australian's bid to reopen his extradition case.

Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden after two women accused him of sexual misconduct during a visit to the country in mid-2010.

He said in a statement he was grateful to the Ecuadorian ambassador and the government of Ecuador for considering his application.

Assange's mother says she desperately hopes Ecuador will decide to protect her son.

If it does not, she says other third-world governments who've been affected by US greed and corruption must come forward to offer protection.

"When I heard about it this morning I thought good on you mate," Ms Assange told AAP on Wednesday.

"It shows a level of clear thinking given there are absolutely no proper legal processes in this case."

Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Patino told a news conference that Assange had written to leftist President Rafael Correa saying he was being persecuted and seeking asylum.

He said that Assange had argued "the authorities in his country will not defend his minimum guarantees in front of any government or ignore the obligation to protect a politically persecuted citizen".

He said it was impossible for him to return to his homeland because it would not protect him from being extradited to "a foreign country that applies the death penalty for the crime of espionage and sedition".

The reference is presumably to the US. Assange claims the US has secretly indicted him for divulging American secrets and will act on the indictment if Sweden succeeds in extraditing him from Britain.

Assange shot to international prominence in 2010 with the release of hundreds of thousands of secret US documents, including a hard-to-watch video that showed US forces gunning down a crowd of Iraqi civilians and journalists whom they had mistaken for insurgents.

Australian authorities have co-operated with the US in investigating WikiLeaks' conduct.

They concluded Assange has broken no Australian law.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said Assange has been given the same consular assistance as any other Australian facing legal proceedings overseas.

Her government will ask the US to follow due process if Assange ends up in court, Ms Gillard said in May.

He's lost his marbles to want to go to Ecuador. Must be one of the easiest places for US government thugs to snatch or assassinate him.

Julian Assange has reportedly hired Sydney lawyers to pursue a defamation case against Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Mr Assange has told left-leaning activist group GetUp! that Ms Gillard defamed WikiLeaks when she allegedly told a radio station in 2010 he had broken the law by releasing hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables, according to a statement released by the group on Monday.

"I have hired lawyers in Sydney and they are investigating the different ways in which we can sue Gillard over this statement," Assange told GetUp!

Mr Assange is holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London after seeking asylum as part of a bid to fight extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over rape allegations.

Mr Assange also rejected claims by Foreign Minister Bob Carr that he was receiving full consular support.

"When there are statements made that there are 63 consular contacts, they are counting emails that they send my lawyer asking for some future possible appointment," he said.
"I haven't seen any member of the Australian embassy or consulate since I was in prison in 2010. And even then, all they did was bring some notepads, pens, et cetera," he told GetUp!