> Suppose it's just Murray's reporting that isn't evenhanded. Murray is clearly on Assange's side, but that doesn't mean his observations of the judge's behavi

> Suppose it's just Murray's reporting that isn't evenhanded. Murray is clearly on Assange's side, but that doesn't mean his observations of the judge's behaviour aren't accurate. As far as I know, no one's refuted what he described in the passage I quoted above. Also, it's not just Murray. Here's the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) ("the global voice of the legal profession" according to the site): > IBAHRI Co-Chair, the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG, commented: ‘The IBAHRI is concerned that the mistreatment of Julian Assange constitutes breaches of his right to a fair trial and protections enshrined in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the UK is party. It is deeply shocking that as a mature democracy in which the rule of law and the rights of individuals are preserved, the UK Government has been silent and has taken no action to terminate such gross and disproportionate conduct by Crown officials. As well, we are surprised that the presiding judge has reportedly said and done nothing to rebuke the officials and their superiors for such conduct in the case of an accused whose offence is not one of personal violence. Many countries in the world look to Britain as an example in such matters. On this occasion, the example is shocking and excessive. It is reminiscent of the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal which can happen when prison officials are not trained in the basic human rights of detainees and the Nelson Mandela Rules.’ - https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750 https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05... Would you argue the International Bar Association isn't being evenhanded here?