3 ms·

From his speech: "The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights that we hold dear [...] remind them how, in the morning, the sun

by objclxt 14y ago

From his speech: "The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights that we hold dear [...] remind them how, in the morning, the sun came up on a different world, and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice" I am not sure a country with a pretty bad human rights record[1] (not the worst record in the world, but neither a very good one), with a government that has very limited free speech and where corruption is widespread, should be held up as a shining beacon of justice. It is particularly ironic that Assange would directly criticise the US for posing a threat to freedom of speech and conveniently ignore that fact that the country he wants to seek asylum in has shut down radio stations and imprisoned newspaper editors who are critical of the current regime[2]. [1]:http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador [2]:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2yf8X1FT5_w9UWANn3bjQ?docId=CNG.a24fb352dbca8778c3acc558060f5fa5.311 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8AIK9t2y...

hahainternet 14y ago
You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange! (I obviously don't endorse this but this is the revisionist perspective being used)
- hammersend 14y ago
  "You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange!" I find these facts irrelevant (to the issue at hand) because these facts are irrelevant. There isn't a country under the sun that hasn't done something somebody would find objectionable. What would you have Assange do? Shop your definition of more "enlightened" soveriegnties until one of them decides to grant him asylum? What would you do in his shoes?
  - hahainternet 14y ago
    I don't know what I would do. I would hope that I would face due process and defend myself, but I am not Assange and so cannot answer that question.
    - hammersend 14y ago
      "I would hope that I would face due process" That's the entire issue with this. If Assange was getting his due process, the interview would have taken place via video conference as has been enshrined in Swedish judicial practice via this (https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337 https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337) ruling from the Swedish supreme court. The man probably knows more about his situation than you do and if he thinks going to Sweden is a bad idea for him then, unless you can come up with a really good reason why not, his opinion on the matter carries a lot more weight than yours.
Retric 14y ago
The US has committed atrocity's just as bad as most countries. EX: Slavery, Bio warfare vs American Indians along with the 'trail of tears' etc. (Many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears) The Atlantic Slave Trade actually killed ~16 million which is several times more people than all the Nazi concentration camps put together. But, IMO it's not meaningful to look at a country and say their good or evil. You look at individual acts and say that's good or that's evil.
- Natsu 14y ago
  I think that there's no such thing as a country that "is" good. There are those which do good and those which do not. There are plenty of atrocities to go around, almost every one of them justified by people hating whoever was at the other end of the atrocity.
justsee 14y ago
It's worth considering the wider context of Ecuadorian politics, media and power before immediately signing on to the "Assange is a hypocrite, Correa is a Dictator" line that is clearly being sung from many media sheets. The private media's relationship to foreign power, interests that align with financial elites, and hostility to policies which prioritise the public good mean any politician who is trying to diminish the influence of media owners will be painted as an 'enemy of free speech'. If Obama revisited the legislation that allowed the truthiness of Fox News to flourish, he would also be painted as an 'enemy of free speech'. The problem with concentrated private media ownership is that it's a special type of free speech, curated and promoted by a handful of special-interest media owners, like our very own Rupert Murdoch. Correa talks about this in his interview with Assange, mentioning that 4 of the 5 private media owners are bankers, and that it makes it incredibly difficult to pass financial legislation that benefits Ecuador at the expense of financial interests. From the tidbits I've heard of his policies: * striving for a mix of 30% private media, 30% government, and 30% local / non-profit is a far more balanced media mix than many Western countries. * requiring media organisations not to have other interests is just a sane way to ensure conflicted situations in reporting don't arise. However I'd agree with you that there are definitely elements that paint a picture of a typical politician rather than a shining free speech advocate: see treatment of indigenous people opposing mining developments, his actions against publication of a book revealing contracts his brother has etc. Even considering this, much of the international reporting criticising Correa conflates his actions which clearly do involve improving the Ecuadorian media environment with actions which are clearly about suppressing dissent.

by objclxt 14y ago

hahainternet 14y ago

You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange! (I obviously don't endorse this but this is the revisionist perspective being used)

hammersend 14y ago
"You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange!" I find these facts irrelevant (to the issue at hand) because these facts are irrelevant. There isn't a country under the sun that hasn't done something somebody would find objectionable. What would you have Assange do? Shop your definition of more "enlightened" soveriegnties until one of them decides to grant him asylum? What would you do in his shoes?
- hahainternet 14y ago
  I don't know what I would do. I would hope that I would face due process and defend myself, but I am not Assange and so cannot answer that question.
  - hammersend 14y ago
    "I would hope that I would face due process" That's the entire issue with this. If Assange was getting his due process, the interview would have taken place via video conference as has been enshrined in Swedish judicial practice via this (https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337 https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337) ruling from the Swedish supreme court. The man probably knows more about his situation than you do and if he thinks going to Sweden is a bad idea for him then, unless you can come up with a really good reason why not, his opinion on the matter carries a lot more weight than yours.

Retric 14y ago

The US has committed atrocity's just as bad as most countries. EX: Slavery, Bio warfare vs American Indians along with the 'trail of tears' etc. (Many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears) The Atlantic Slave Trade actually killed ~16 million which is several times more people than all the Nazi concentration camps put together. But, IMO it's not meaningful to look at a country and say their good or evil. You look at individual acts and say that's good or that's evil.

Natsu 14y ago
I think that there's no such thing as a country that "is" good. There are those which do good and those which do not. There are plenty of atrocities to go around, almost every one of them justified by people hating whoever was at the other end of the atrocity.

justsee 14y ago

It's worth considering the wider context of Ecuadorian politics, media and power before immediately signing on to the "Assange is a hypocrite, Correa is a Dictator" line that is clearly being sung from many media sheets. The private media's relationship to foreign power, interests that align with financial elites, and hostility to policies which prioritise the public good mean any politician who is trying to diminish the influence of media owners will be painted as an 'enemy of free speech'. If Obama revisited the legislation that allowed the truthiness of Fox News to flourish, he would also be painted as an 'enemy of free speech'. The problem with concentrated private media ownership is that it's a special type of free speech, curated and promoted by a handful of special-interest media owners, like our very own Rupert Murdoch. Correa talks about this in his interview with Assange, mentioning that 4 of the 5 private media owners are bankers, and that it makes it incredibly difficult to pass financial legislation that benefits Ecuador at the expense of financial interests. From the tidbits I've heard of his policies: * striving for a mix of 30% private media, 30% government, and 30% local / non-profit is a far more balanced media mix than many Western countries. * requiring media organisations not to have other interests is just a sane way to ensure conflicted situations in reporting don't arise. However I'd agree with you that there are definitely elements that paint a picture of a typical politician rather than a shining free speech advocate: see treatment of indigenous people opposing mining developments, his actions against publication of a book revealing contracts his brother has etc. Even considering this, much of the international reporting criticising Correa conflates his actions which clearly do involve improving the Ecuadorian media environment with actions which are clearly about suppressing dissent.