4 ms·

You don't see a problem when a legal hearing that's been criticised as "undermining of due process and the rule of law" by the International Bar Association onl

by k1m 6y ago

You don't see a problem when a legal hearing that's been criticised as "undermining of due process and the rule of law" by the International Bar Association only offers a tiny number of hard-to-get seats to the public and then asks Amnesty International to compete with them on a first-come, first-serve basis? From the Amnesty tweet thread: "The general public has a right to the few seats in the public gallery; trial monitors should not be competing with the public to secure a seat that belongs to the public-at-large." - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889 https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889

thaumasiotes 6y ago
I tend to agree that the problem is that everybody is prohibited from seeing the trial, not that Amnesty International is included in the group "everybody".
shadowgovt 6y ago
Trial monitors are the public-at-large. If they want a special designation, I believe that's a process that starts with a law from the Houses, not the whim of a single trial judge. Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion. I'm happy to stand corrected if there's precedent to the contrary.
- k1m 6y ago
  Well, Amnesty do not think that their trial monitors should be treated as "public-at-large", otherwise I doubt they'd be concerned by this development. They've stated that they've observed trials before in other countries without trouble. Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove that they're wrong on this? I found this in one of their documents: "Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have for many years sent observers to significant political trials. The acceptance of international trial observers (whether sent by foreign governments or by non-governmental organizations) has arguably become an international legal norm. The practice is well established and accepted within the international community." - https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol300021998en.pdf https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219... You write: > Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion. I'm sure if the judge in the Assange case was facing an influx of trial monitors and finding it hard to decide which ones to let in, she would have made that clear. She hasn't said anything of the sort.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    The onus isn't on me; it's on Amnesty International. Nor am I the judge; the judge in the Assange trial is.

by k1m 6y ago

thaumasiotes 6y ago

I tend to agree that the problem is that everybody is prohibited from seeing the trial, not that Amnesty International is included in the group "everybody".

shadowgovt 6y ago

Trial monitors are the public-at-large. If they want a special designation, I believe that's a process that starts with a law from the Houses, not the whim of a single trial judge. Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion. I'm happy to stand corrected if there's precedent to the contrary.

k1m 6y ago
Well, Amnesty do not think that their trial monitors should be treated as "public-at-large", otherwise I doubt they'd be concerned by this development. They've stated that they've observed trials before in other countries without trouble. Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove that they're wrong on this? I found this in one of their documents: "Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have for many years sent observers to significant political trials. The acceptance of international trial observers (whether sent by foreign governments or by non-governmental organizations) has arguably become an international legal norm. The practice is well established and accepted within the international community." - https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol300021998en.pdf https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219... You write: > Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion. I'm sure if the judge in the Assange case was facing an influx of trial monitors and finding it hard to decide which ones to let in, she would have made that clear. She hasn't said anything of the sort.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  The onus isn't on me; it's on Amnesty International. Nor am I the judge; the judge in the Assange trial is.