Bits and Bites from Around the World > Assange Closer to Extradition to the USA; Man refuses to answer pregnancy question; Girl marries herself

..

Britain clears way for Julian Assange's extradition to United States

By Clyde Hughes

   

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange speaks to reporters from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London

 on May 19, 2017. The British Home Secretary agreed to the extradition of Assange to the United States on Friday.

File Photo by Facundo Arrizabalaga/PA-EFE

June 17 (UPI) -- Jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange moved closer to extradition to the United States on Friday after the British Home Secretary Priti Patel approved the move.

Assange, who faces 18 espionage-related laws in the United States, has been aggressively fighting efforts to be taken across the Atlantic Ocean to court hearings.

He has been in London's Belmarsh prison for the past three years after being protected for years in the Ecuadorian embassy there.

"Under the Extradition Act 2003, the Secretary of State must sign an extradition order if there are no grounds to prohibit the order being made," Britain's Home Office said in a statement.

"On 17 June, following consideration by both the Magistrates Court and High Court, the extradition of Mr. Julian Assange to the U.S. was ordered.

"Mr. Assange retains the normal 14-day right to appeal. In this case, the U.K. courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust, or an abuse of process to extradite Mr. Assange.

"Nor have they found that extradition would be incompatible with his human rights, including his right to a fair trial and to freedom of expression, and that whilst in the U.S. he will be treated appropriately, including in relation to his health."

In March, a three-judge panel of Britain's Supreme Court ruled that Assange's appeal of a December High Court decision allowing his extradition to the United States did not "raise an arguable point of law" leading the way to Friday's decision.

WikiLeaks released a statement vowing to continue fighting the extradition.

"Today is not the end of the fight. It is only the beginning of a new legal battle," WikiLeaks said, according to The Guardian. "We will appeal through the legal system; the next appeal will be before the high court.

"Julian did nothing wrong. He has committed no crime and is not a criminal. He is a journalist and a publisher and he is being punished for doing his job. It was in Priti Patel's power to do the right thing.

"Instead, she will forever be remembered as an accomplice of the United States in its agenda to turn investigative journalism into a criminal enterprise."

The extradition is tied to 2010, when WikiLeaks posted a series of leaks by former U.S. Army soldier Chelsea Manning, along with more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables containing classified diplomatic analysis from world leaders.

In 2010 an arrest warrant for Assange was issued for two separate sexual assault allegations in Sweden and Britain ruled he should be extradited to Sweden.

Assange fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in London seeking political asylum in 2012, claiming political asylum. He was later charged in the United States in connection with the 2010 cable leak.

I believe the Swedish charges were trumped up because the USA felt Sweden would extradite Assange more easily than Britain. They have since been dropped. 

I also believe that Assange should not have been charged in the USA until the criminal activity he exposed had been dealt with. 

This seems like a Deep State activity aimed at getting control of the internet media. 

Man prevented from donating blood over pregnancy question

Man prevented from donating blood over pregnancy question

© Getty Images / UniversalImagesGroup

Habitual blood donor Leslie Sinclair has been turned away from the Albert Halls clinic in the Scottish city of Stirling after refusing to answer a question on an intake form asking about whether he was expecting a child or had been pregnant during the prior six months.

Sinclair was sent home on Wednesday night from the facility where, despite much-publicized efforts by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS) to find 16,000 new donors, National Health Service (NHS) personnel refused to take his blood without a response to the pregnancy question.

“I am angry because I have been giving blood since I was 18 and have regularly gone along. I’m very happy to do so without any problem,” Sinclair said on Thursday, according to the Daily Mail. He explained that while he had no objection to filling out forms about “medical conditions or diseases” because he knows “the blood needs to be safe,” he found the pregnancy question baffling.

“I pointed out to the staff that it was impossible for me to be in that position, but I was told that I would need to answer, otherwise I couldn’t give blood. I told them that was stupid and that if I had to leave, I wouldn’t be back, and that was it, I got on my bike and cycled away,” the retired engineering company driver said.

The 66-year-old, who claims to have donated over 125 pints of blood in the last 50 years, denounced the NHS’ new policy as “nonsensical,” pointing out that “there are vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help.” Pregnant women are required to wait six months after giving birth to donate blood.

The NHS launched what it described as its biggest-ever blood drive in October, calling for an unprecedented 100,000 new donors by the spring in anticipation of doctors returning to performing elective surgical procedures that were largely shut down or postponed during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

The agency also announced last June that “everyone” would be asked “the same gender-neutral questions” in what a PSA video called “our most inclusive donation experience yet.” 

SNBTS director Marc Turner explained that “while pregnancy is only a relevant question to those whose biological sex or sex assigned at birth is female, sex assigned at birth is not always visually clear to staff.” He cited the NHS’ “duty to promote inclusiveness” as the basis for requiring the clearly-male Sinclair to share his pregnancy status.

India: Gujarat girl ties the knot with herself

Her marriage had to be solemnised at home instead of temple as priest backs out

Published:  June 09, 2022 16:40

IANS 

Kshama Bindu going through the rituals of marriage.

Image Credit: AP

Baroda: Gujarat girl Kshama Bindu, who grabbed the headlines and hit the eye of the storm after she expressed her intention to marry herself, has solemnised her marriage in a private function at her residence.

Kshama performed mehandi, haldi ceremonies and got married on Wednesday in the presence of ten people, including her friends and colleagues.

Sharing her wedding pictures on Instagram, 24-year-old Kshama posted in Hindi, “Khud se mohabbat me pad gai, kal mai apni hi Dulhan ban gai”.

In the pictures of her ‘mehandi’, she could be seen wearing a kurta, jacket and dhoti.

Her marriage had to be solemnised at home on June 8 instead of temple on June 11 as the priest who had agreed to get Kshama married to herself backed out after opposition from local politicians.

Kshama’s expression of self love grabbed a mix reaction. On one hand, she was trolled on social media, while on the other hand, many people supported her.

Talking to IANS, Kshama said she changed her wedding venue and kept it simple as she did not want to hurt anyone’s feelings.

She thanked everyone who wished her on social media after the wedding.

Deep State's Dirty Tricks Have Kept Julian Assange a Prisoner for Far Too Long

..

Snowden declares 'end of case against Julian Assange' after newspaper reveals

LIES by key witness in US extradition case

27 Jun, 2021 01:15

FILE PHOTO: Sigurdur Thordarson and Julian Assange ©  Sigurdur Thordarson

Key accusations in the case against WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange, who faces up to 175 years in prison if extradited to the US, are reportedly based on testimony from a convicted fraudster who admitted to media he was lying.

Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, an Icelandic citizen and former WikiLeaks volunteer who became an FBI informant for $5,000, has admitted to Icelandic newspaper Stundin that he fabricated important parts of the accusations in the indictment. 

In an article published on Saturday, Stundin details several parts of his testimony that he now denies, claiming that Assange never instructed him to carry out any hacking. 

The newspaper points out that even though a court in London has refused to extradite Assange to the US on humanitarian grounds, it still sided with the US when it came to claims based on Thordarson's now-denied testimony. For instance, the ruling says that “Mr. Assange and Teenager failed a joint attempt to decrypt a file stolen from a 'NATO country 1' bank,” where "NATO country 1" is believed to refer to Iceland, while "Teenager" referred to Thordarson himself.

However, he now reportedly claims that the file in question can't exactly be considered "stolen" since it was assumed to have been distributed and leaked by whistleblowers inside the bank and many people online were attempting to decrypt it at the time. That's because it allegedly contained information about defaulted loans provided by Icelandic Landsbanki, the fall of which in 2008 led to a major economic crisis in the country.  

Thordarson also provided the publication with chat logs from his time volunteering for WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011, showing his frequent requests for hackers to either attack or get information from Icelandic entities and websites. But, according to Stundin, none of the logs show that Thordarson was asked to do that by anyone inside WikiLeaks. What they do show, according to the newspaper, are constant attempts by the organization's volunteer to inflate his position, describing himself as chief of staff or head of communications. 

Pride and overconfidence make for really bad judgment.

In 2012, WikiLeaks filed criminal charges against Thordarson over embezzlement and financial fraud. He was later sentenced for both in Iceland. 

US out to get Assange

Stundin also cites Ogmundur Jonasson, then-Icelandic interior minister, who says US authorities were going out of their way to get Assange.

They were trying to use things here [in Iceland] and use people in our country to spin a web, a cobweb that would catch Julian Assange. 

The newspaper claims that Thordarson's testimony is key for the prosecution's line portraying Assange as a criminal, rather than a journalist publishing material protected by the First Amendment, like the New York Times or other media that shared the same documents as WikiLeaks. 

Reacting to the bombshell article by Stundin, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted: "This is the end of the case against Julian Assange." Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald agreed, saying: "It should be."

Assange has spent more than two years behind bars at Belmarsh Prison in the UK. The US government has charged the Australian journalist under the Espionage Act, accusing him of leaking classified information in 2010. At the time, WikiLeaks published documents detailing abuses, including possible war crimes, carried out by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington is currently seeking his extradition, and Assange could be jailed for up to 175 years if found guilty. 

Deep State cannot afford for Americans to find out how many innocent people they kill lest the people turn against them and decide that being involved in every war on Earth might not be a good thing.

At the beginning of June, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer called on the UK government to release the journalist, condemning his incarceration as “one of the biggest judicial scandals in history.”

Belmarsh HMP

The Message is the Media - Julian Assange - Judge's Ruling on Extradition to the USA

..

WikiLeaks & Pamela Anderson make last ditch pardon pleas ahead of judge’s ruling on Assange extradition to US

3 Jan 2021 10:46

Pamela Anderson leaves Belmarsh Prison in south-east London, after visiting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in May 2019. © Gareth Fuller/PA via AP

Baywatch icon Pamela Anderson has joined WikiLeaks in making an 11th hour plea for the United States to drop charges against Julian Assange ahead of a judge’s ruling on whether he will be extradited from the UK.

The WikiLeaks co-founder is set to appear at England’s Central Criminal Court on Monday, where District Judge Vanessa Baraitser will deliver her judgment on whether he should be extradited to the US to face charges of violating the 1917 Espionage Act. 

If convicted in the US, the 49-year-old could be hit with a 175-year prison sentence due to WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to US wars in the Middle East, as well as diplomatic cables.

Bombshell actress Anderson has been a vocal supporter of Assange for several years and the 53-year-old made an impassioned, last-ditch plea seeking a presidential pardon for the Australian.

“Julian is being charged with journalism. Documents that have exposed war crimes and human rights abuses. Now the US wants to punish him for exposing crimes,” she told the New York Post.

If this extradition is successful, it will mean that no journalist is safe from prosecution.

“This will set a precedent where any US journalist can be charged and sent to any country that requests their extradition… And don’t think ‘it won’t happen to me,’ because it absolutely could, and countries will use it to silence whatever they don’t like the sound of,” she added.

The comments were echoed by WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson, who said “The mere fact that this case has made it to court let alone gone on this long is a historic, large-scale attack on freedom of speech.”

Anderson met Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2014 after being introduced to him by fashion designer Vivienne Westwood. 

She visited him multiple times during his seven-year exile in the embassy before he was handed over to British police by the Ecuadorian authorities. She was also reportedly Assange’s first visitor, outside of his legal team, when he was moved to Belmarsh Prison in southeast London.

“It’s madness. He is… crammed in amongst murderers in a prison that is rife with Covid,” she said of the conditions Assange is facing. “It’s the middle of winter and it’s freezing in there and his winter clothes haven’t been delivered. The whole thing is a medieval madness.” 

Supporters have been vocal in urging US President Donald Trump to pardon Assange before the end of his presidency. 

“The US government should listen to the groundswell of support coming from the mainstream media editorials, NGOs around the world such as Amnesty and Reporters Without Borders and the United Nations who are all calling for these charges to be dropped,” Hrafnsson said.

“This is a fight that affects each and every person’s right to know and is being fought collectively,” he added.

WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange cannot be extradited to U.S., British judge rules

By Jill Lawless  The Associated Press

Posted January 4, 2021, 8:11 am

A British judge on Monday rejected the United States’ request to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to face espionage charges over the publication of secret U.S. documents a decade ago, saying he was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions.

In a mixed ruling for Assange and his supporters, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected defence arguments that the 49-year-old Australian faces a politically motivated American prosecution that rides roughshod over free-speech protections. But she said Assange’s precarious mental health would likely deteriorate further under the conditions of “near total isolation” he would face in a U.S. prison.

“I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America,” the judge said.

Lawyers for the U.S. government said they would appeal the decision, and the U.S. Department of Justice said it would continue to seek Assange’s extradition.

“While we are extremely disappointed in the court’s ultimate decision, we are gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised,” it said in a statement. “In particular, the court rejected all of Mr. Assange’s arguments regarding political motivation, political offence, fair trial and freedom of speech.”

Assange’s lawyers said they would ask for his release from a London prison where he has been held for more than 18 months at a bail hearing on Wednesday.

Assange, who sat quietly in the dock at London’s Central Criminal Court for the ruling, wiped his brow as the decision was announced. His partner Stella Moris, with whom he has two young sons, wept.

Outside court, Moris said the ruling was “the first step towards justice,” but it was not yet time to celebrate. “I had hoped that today would be the day that Julian would come home,” she said. “Today is not that day, but that day will come soon.”

The ruling marked a dramatic moment in Assange’s long legal battles in Britain _ though likely not its final chapter. It’s unclear whether the incoming Biden administration will pursue the prosecution, initiated under President Donald Trump.

I doubt the Deep-State President Biden will have any mercy on Assange.

Assange’s American lawyer, Barry Pollack, said the legal team was “enormously gratified” by the British court’s decision. “We hope that after consideration of the U.K. court’s ruling, the United States will decide not to pursue the case further,” he said.

Moris urged Trump to pardon Assange before he leaves office this month. “Mr. President, tear down these prison walls,” she said. “Let our little boys have their father.”

U.S. prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.

Lawyers for Assange argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment protections of freedom of speech for publishing documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lawyers for the U.S. government denied that Assange was being prosecuted merely for publishing, saying the case “is in large part based upon his unlawful involvement” in the theft of the diplomatic cables and military files by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

The British judge sided with U.S. lawyers on that score, saying Assange’s actions, if proven, would amount to offences “that would not be protected by his right to freedom of speech.” She also said the U.S. judicial system would give him a fair trial.

What about being a whistleblower? Isn't there protection for someone who reveals horrible crimes even if they were performed by the state?

The defence also argued during a three-week hearing in the fall that Assange risked “a grossly disproportionate sentence” and detention in “draconian and inhumane conditions” if he was sent to the United States.

The judge agreed that U.S. prison conditions would be oppressive, saying there was a “real risk” he would be sent to the Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado. It is the highest security prison in the U.S., also holding Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski and Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

She accepted evidence from expert witnesses that Assange had a depressive disorder and an autism spectrum disorder.

“I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate, causing him to commit suicide with the single-minded determination of his autism spectrum disorder,” the judge said.

She said Assange was “a depressed and sometimes despairing man” who had the “intellect and determination” to circumvent any suicide prevention measures taken by American prison authorities.

Britain’s extradition agreement with the U.S. says that extradition can be blocked if “by reason of the person’s mental or physical condition, it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.”

This is not the first time the U.K. has refused extradition to the United States on those grounds.

In 2018, a British court refused to extradite Lauri Love, a hacker accused of penetrating U.S. government networks, because of the risk he would kill himself. In 2012 then-Home Secretary Theresa May blocked the extradition of Gary McKinnon, who was accused of breaking into U.S. military and space networks, because of the risk he would end his life.

The prosecution of Assange has been condemned by journalists and human rights groups, who say it undermines free speech and imperils journalists. They welcomed the judge’s decision, even though it was not made on free-speech grounds.

“This is a huge relief to anyone who cares about the rights of journalists,” The Freedom of the Press Foundation tweeted.

Assange’s legal troubles began in 2010, when he was arrested in London at the request of Sweden, which wanted to question him about allegations of rape and sexual assault made by two women. In 2012, Assange jumped bail and sought refuge inside the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he was beyond the reach of U.K. and Swedish authorities _ but also effectively was a prisoner, unable to leave the tiny diplomatic space in London’s tony Knightsbridge area.

The relationship between Assange and his hosts eventually soured, and he was evicted from the embassy in April 2019. British police immediately arrested him for breaching bail in 2012.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed, but Assange has remained in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison throughout his extradition hearing.

HMP Belmarsh

‘It’s shocking’: China Daily chief calls out NYT, WaPo, & Australian PM for refusal to defend Julian Assange

4 Jan 2021 11:54

Screenshot © Twitter / @chenweihua

China Daily EU bureau chief Chen Weihua publicly shamed the New York Times, Washington Post, and Australian PM Scott Morrison for their lack of support for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as he faced extradition to the US.

In the early hours on Monday – the day Assange faced extradition in a trial at London’s Old Bailey court, which was ultimately rejected – Weihua tweeted, “It’s shocking that none from New York Times and Washington Post [are] coming out to support Julian Assange.”

He also took aim at the Prime Minister of Australia, where Assange was born, calling it “shocking” and a “shame” that Morrison has been “dead quiet about the greatest Australian citizen.”

Weihua tweeted and retweeted several posts calling for Assange’s release, and signed a statement by international journalists in support of the Wikileaks founder, putting most Western reporters – who have stayed silent on the matter – to shame.

Think about this: Weihua's criticism of USA mainstream media are well deserved. They have abandoned the idea of free speech and protecting journalism as one might expect for media outlets controlled by Deep State, as they are. 

But to have the criticism come from China Daily, China's English language daily, which is controlled by the state, is pretty astonishing.

Though the New York Times has defended Assange in the past, it did not publish any article in support of the Wikileaks founder in the lead-up to his extradition trial on Monday. The only pieces the paper has run with are Sunday’s straight explanation piece about the trial – which included the claim that Assange had been “criticized as a publicity seeker with an erratic personality” – and a defense of Assange by documentary director Laura Poitras on December 21.

Back in May 2019, the NYT’s editorial board defended Assange against the US Espionage Act charges, but this piece was also critical, describing him as “no hero.”

Like the NYT, the Washington Post published straight news articles on Assange’s trial, but no editorial board defense.

In one of its news pieces, the Post opined that the trial “could have profound implications for press freedoms,” but it has a track record for attacking the Wikileaks founder, with headlines that included “Julian Assange is not a free-press hero. And he is long overdue for personal accountability.”

The Australian Prime Minister has repeatedly demonstrated that Assange’s home country would not stick its neck out to support him. Morrison declared in 2019 that he would not receive any “special treatment” from the Australian government, and has rejected pleas from Assange’s family and friends to intervene in the matter.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled against the extradition of Assange to the United States on Monday, citing both the risk to his mental health and the fact that conditions in US prisons breach Britain’s human rights laws.

The Two Michaels - Trudeau's Hypocritical Stand Comes From the SNC-Lavalin Disgrace

Trudeau's rigid stand against China is not what it appears, not at all

Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been languishing in a Chinese prison for a year and a half. Yesterday, Prime Minister Trudeau told them they are likely to be there for several more years, if not the rest of their lives.

The two Michaels have done nothing to deserve their incarceration; they are pawns in a political nightmare orchestrated by the USA, Canada, and China. The nightmare began when the USA requested Canada arrest Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei, and the daughter of its founder. The USA has accused Meng of violating its sanctions against Iran.

Whether that is the real reason for wanting Meng is a good question. The world is moving frantically toward installing 5G systems that are slightly terrifying in their reach. The value of this system probably counts in the trillions of dollars. Having watched the way America does business these days, one has to wonder if the arrest of Meng is more about 5G than about Iran. 

At any rate, America’s request for the arrest of Meng, should probably have been rejected immediately by Canada since it had to do with American sanctions. Or does Canada have sanctions against Iran? Do American sanctions effectively mean that Canada has sanctions.  I was never so proud of a Canadian Prime Minister as I was of Jean Cretien when he told George Bush that we would not be part of Desert Storm. Desert Storm was launched on fake intel and was a completely unjustified war. 

Trudeau should have told President Trump that Canada would not assist him in using sanctions to bully other countries. I believe Chretien would have. It’s unfortunate there has never been any discussion in the Trudeau-friendly Canadian media regarding this. Trudeau owns most of the media in this country by promising them $600m if they write friendly stuff about him.

Who was the highest-level official to approve the arrest of Meng? Did it go to the AG or the PM?

Yesterday, Trudeau said he would not give in to Chinese coercion. But, it appears he gave in to American coercion in the arrest and detention of Meng. This is good policy if you are talking about a terrorist group like ISIS or the Islamic Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines. These are gangs that kidnap people for money. Giving in to them is certainly going to endanger Canadians. Though, I’m fairly certain some ransom was paid to  Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb, for the return of Canadian Robert Fowler, UN envoy to Niger.

However, China is one of the largest countries in the world, not a band of Muslim radicals. They feel totally justified in their actions for two reasons – the don’t believe Meng’s arrest was justified in the first place, and, in the second, they believe political interference in the judicial system is normal. It is in China, and they believe it is in Canada as well. And why wouldn’t they?

Canada’s extradition laws allow the Minister of Justice to intervene in the process of extradition at any time, and there is history of him doing so, though it is sparce. There is also history of the Prime Minister’s Office interfering with the judicial process, as per the SNC Lavalin affair. This was blatant interference with the Attorney General who refused to give in to the PM and got fired. 

What did she refuse to give in to? To the use of an obscure law slipped into the back pages of a huge omnibus bill that was specifically designed to give SNC Lavalin the option of buying their way out of prosecution for their extraordinary corruption. SNC Lavalin headquarters lie next to Trudeau’s riding in Montreal, and many of their top executives live in his riding. Political interference? – a complete end-around the law! New laws written to ease the burden of justice, should never be applicable to cases already before the courts; the temptation toward corruption is just too great.

So, now, why is Trudeau being so rigid with the two Michaels? It is fall-out from the SNC Lavalin affair! It gives him the opportunity to stand in front of his cottage (remember when we had a Parliament?), and pronounce every day that Canada is a nation of laws and the government will not interfere with the judicial process. As unbelievably hypocritical as that is, he seems to think that if he says it every day that eventually Canadians will believe he actually means it. This would require forgetting about one of the most disgraceful moments in Canadian politics. 

The Two Michaels Have Spent a Year and a Half in a Chinese Prison Because of Trudeau's Hypocrisy

Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor

Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been in a Chinese prison for more than 1.5 years. They were arrested just days after Canada did something really, really stupid. They arrested Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei, as she landed in Vancouver, on request by the US. She is suspected of violating American sanctions against Iran.

Canada (ie Trudeau) should have told Trump years ago not to expect us to help with prosecuting people suspected of breaking American sanctions. Most American sanctions have to do with economic matters, not strategic matters. Trump has been bullying countries into buying American products, especially weapons systems through such sanctions. There is only one way to handle a bully and that is to stand up to him. Trudeau didn't have the courage. Jean Cretien would have told Trump to get lost, and there would never have been the arrests of the two Michaels.

To my astonishment, the extradition court didn't throw the case out of court because Meng was not accused of violating any Canadian laws. You can't be extradited from Canada for breaking a law that doesn't exist in Canada. Nevertheless, the judge somehow saw it differently. If you have read much of my other blog, you will know how much I think of Canadian judges.

So, now we have Meng leisurely lounging in one of her two Vancouver mansions, and the two Michaels surviving in a Chinese prison that is anything but luxurious. And the Liberal government is doing nothing about it, nothing! The Attorney General has the authority to dismiss Meng's case, whereupon the two Michaels will be sent home, but he won't. Why?

The Great Hypocrisy

Two years ago Trudeau greatly interfered in a case the Attorney General was allowing to go to prosecution despite backroom political maneuvering where the PM and his staff created a law specifically to rescue the company from prosecution. The company, SNC Lavalin, the most corrupt company in Canadian history, would be allowed to buy their way out of prosecution. The AG balked and got her back up the more people from the PMO pushed her. Her courage and backbone got her fired as AG and replaced with someone with a more flexible spinal column, a team player, someone who would protect the PM at the expense of the Canadian people. 

The consequence, Trudeau lost two of his best ministers, they quit. Both were women and one is indigenous. As a feminist who stands up for indigenous peoples, his hypocrisy was glaringly obvious. And, it is alarmingly obvious now as he stands before his cottage (remember when we had a parliament?) and pronounces over and over again that Canada is a country of laws and the government will not interfere with the law.

The two Michaels give Trudeau the opportunity to restate that every few days, as if it were true. I think he believes if he says it enough, we Canadians will actually believe it and forget all about the SNC-Lavalin fiasco. Consequently, it has become another fall-out from his corrupt handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

My question is, who approved the arrest of Meng Wanzhou in the first place? When the request came in from Washington to arrest her and hold her for extradition, who approved it? Who was the top person to authorize it? Was it a politician? If so, then politics has already interfered with the judicial system. If not, then why did we arrest someone who broke no Canadian laws? As a favour to the USA? How does that fit with politics not interfering with justice?

The Canadian government can intervene to end Meng's extradition trial. Should it?

Extradition Act allows justice minister to intervene at any point during judicial phase

Mark Gollom, Olivia Stefanovich · CBC News 

Any decision on the fate of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, currently awaiting a decision on extradition from Canada, is going to have political fallout. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)

While seasoned jurists say the Canadian government has every legal right to intervene to free Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou from her extradition trial to the U.S., some experts warn such an action could have significant political ramifications.

"The question isn't whether the [Canadian government] can, the question is whether they should," said Toronto-based lawyer Brian Greenspan.

In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to include a specific provision that provides the federal minister of justice the power to intervene in an extradition at any point during the judicial phase.

"The minister has the right to withdraw the authority to proceed and to end the extradition proceeding, and it's totally at the discretion of the minister of justice," Greenspan said.

Extradition proceedings continue in the case against Meng, who was arrested in 2018 in Vancouver on behalf of American justice officials. The United States wants to prosecute Meng for fraud, alleging she lied to banks about her company's connections with Iran, which could possibly violate U.S. sanctions.

The issue of the Canadian government intervening in the case of Meng, the daughter of the Chinese technology giant's founder, was raised recently by the wife of Michael Kovrig, one of two Canadians being held in China on charges of spying.

The Trudeau government has accused China of detaining Kovrig and Michael Spavor in retaliation for the arrest of Meng. Some have suggested Canada could secure their freedom if it put an end to the extradition proceedings against Meng and allowed her to return to China. 

Trudeau has said his government continues to work behind the scenes to secure the release of the two Canadians but has ruled out a prisoner exchange.

Still in custody

The Office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti, said in a statement Tuesday they are "well aware of the laws and processes governing" the extradition proceedings.

"As Ms. Meng's case remains before the courts, and the Minister of Justice has a direct role in the extradition process, it would not be appropriate to comment further on this matter," the statement said.

Former Supreme Court of Canada justice John Major said while Lametti can intervene at any time in the extradition process, it would be unusual — especially if after a prolonged court hearing, it concluded in favour of extradition.

But Major noted there may be reasons to do it, especially as Kovrig and Spavor languish in Chinese detention. 

"I would hope before the attorney general intervenes, [he] would have reasons that convince Canadians he should," Major told CBC News.

"The attorney general has to be very cautious in overruling a trial judge who has conducted a full hearing … You just want [Lametti] to act judiciously, not politically."

'Be very cautious'

Major said Canada is stuck in a difficult position, because if the attorney general quashes the judge's decision in Meng's case, the U.S. could react. Likewise, if the judge turns down extradition, China could retaliate.

"It's a delicate situation where you have the U.S. at odds with China and Canada being caught in the middle," Major said.

Donald Abelson, director of St. Francis Xavier University's Brian Mulroney Institute of Government, said he believes it would be "a very dangerous game for Canada to play in terms of succumbing to pressure" to intervene politically in the case.

"I don't think that's a game that we want to play," said Abelson, who was also a founding director of the Canada-U.S. Institute. "It puts us in a very, very precarious position because we don't want to be seen by the Americans as succumbing to Chinese political pressure."

No, we want to be seen by Americans as succumbing to American political pressure.

Abelson said Canada would be "tempting fate" with the U.S, particularly in the current political climate, where the Chinese government has become the focus of Donald Trump's ire in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic and the countries' trade war.

Abelson said Canada doesn't want to become a "punching bag" for Washington.

David Carment, a professor at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, said he believes Canada's intervention would prompt the Trump administration to use it as a rallying cry to undermine Trudeau's leadership and his pursuit for a majority government when he calls an election.

"I think all sort of diplomatic gloves would come off in this case. The United States would come out fighting and work to undermine this current government's mandate," he said.

So, it seems that the AG should not interfere with the judicial system for political reasons???????

WhaaaaaT?

Christopher Sands, director of the Centre for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the state department officials who brought the case forward against Meng would be unhappy with Canada's decision to intervene.

But Canada's decision to intervene came when they arrested Meng, in the first place.

Trump would likely be angry, send off a dismissive tweet or give Trudeau the cold shoulder at the next G7 meeting. But Sands doesn't believe it would result in major policy ramifications against Canada.

"Would it be 'Canadians are no longer allowed to cross the border?' No. The relationship between us and Canada is too big and complex for that," he said. "I can't see any lasting damage."

From CTV News:

But Treasury Board president Jean-Yves Duclos emphasized the importance of judicial independence when he was asked about this option to withdraw the extradition during his Tuesday press conference.

"In Canada, we have not only a tradition but a responsibility to work in a manner that is supportive of the integrity and the independence of our justice system," Duclos said.

"This is very important for the way in which our institutions work in Canada, we have a separation between the executive, and the legislative, as well as the judicial systems, and that's exactly what it should be."

Unless, of course, you are talking about SNC-Lavalin!

Corruption is Everywhere - Ex-Nissan Boss Carlos Ghosn Flees Japan for Lebanon

Former chairman, awaiting trial, criticizes 'rigged Japanese justice system'

The Associated Press 

Former Nissan chairman Carlos Ghosn, pictured here in March, released a statement saying he left Japan for

Lebanon and 'will no longer be held hostage by a rigged Japanese justice system where guilt is presumed.'

(Kazuhiro Nogi/AFP via Getty Images)

Nissan's former chairman Carlos Ghosn said Tuesday from Lebanon he was not fleeing justice, but left Japan to avoid "injustice and political persecution" over financial misconduct allegations during his tenure leading the automaker.

Ghosn had been released on bail by a Tokyo court while awaiting trial, but was not allowed to travel overseas. He disclosed his location in a statement through his representatives that did not describe how he left Japan, where he had been under surveillance. He promised to talk to reporters next week.

"I am now in Lebanon and will no longer be held hostage by a rigged Japanese justice system where guilt is presumed, discrimination is rampant and basic human rights are denied, in flagrant disregard of Japan's legal obligations under international law and treaties it is bound to uphold," the statement said.

Japanese media quoted prosecutors speaking anonymously who said they did not know how Ghosn had left.

Ghosn, who is of Lebanese origin and holds French, Lebanese and Brazilian passports, was arrested in November 2018 and expected to face trial in April 2020.

Prosecutors fought his release, but a court granted him bail with conditions he be monitored and could not meet with his wife, Carole, who's also of Lebanese origin. Recently, the court allowed them to speak by video calls.

Japan does not have an extradition treaty with Lebanon. It is unclear what steps authorities might take.

Ghosn has repeatedly asserted his innocence, saying authorities trumped up charges to prevent a possible fuller merger between Nissan Motor Co. and alliance partner Renault SA.

He is accused of under-reporting his post-retirement compensation, and breach of trust in diverting Nissan money and allegedly having it shoulder his personal investment losses.

Lawyer denies involvement in escape

During his release on bail, Ghosn had been going daily to the office of his main lawyer, Junichiro Hironaka, to work on his case, except on weekends and holidays.

Hironaka told reporters Tuesday afternoon he was stunned Ghosn had jumped bail, and denied any involvement in or knowledge of the escape. He said the lawyers had all of Ghosn's three passports and he was puzzled by how he could have left the country.

The last time he spoke to Ghosn was on Christmas Day, and he has never been consulted about leaving for Lebanon, Hironaka told reporters outside his law office in Tokyo.

He said the lawyers still need to decide on their next action, besides filing a required report to the judicial authorities. His office was closed for the New Year's holiday in Japan.

"Maybe he thought he won't get a fair trial," Hironaka said, stressing that he continues to believe Ghosn is innocent. "I can't blame him for thinking that way."

He called the circumstances of Ghosn's arrest, the seizure of evidence and the strict bail conditions unfair.

A house in Beirut that is believed to belong to Ghosn. (Mohamed Azakir/Reuters)

In the first official Lebanese comment on Ghosn's arrival, state minister for presidential affairs Selim Jreissati told the An-Nahar newspaper that Ghosn entered Lebanon legally through the airport with his French passport and his Lebanese ID.

Jreissati told the paper that in a meeting with Japan's deputy foreign minister, he presented a file to the Japanese authorities asking for Ghosn to be handed over to be tried in Lebanon according to international anti-corruption laws, of which Lebanon is a signatory. He added that since there was no official word from Japan and it was not yet clear how Ghosn came to Lebanon, the government there will take no formal stance.

Jreissati did not immediately respond to calls from The Associated Press.

The Lebanese General Security, which is in charge of border crossings and foreigners, said Ghosn had entered the country legally and there was no reason to take any action against him.

Ghosn had posted $14 million US bail on two separate releases. He had been rearrested on additional charges after an earlier release.

Earlier, Ricardo Karam, a television host and friend of Ghosn, told The Associated Press that Ghosn arrived in Lebanon on Monday morning.

"He is home," Karam said in a message. "It's a big adventure."

Karam declined to elaborate.

Faces 15 years in prison

Nissan did not have immediate comment Tuesday. The Japanese automaker of the March subcompact, Leaf electric car, and Infiniti luxury models has also been charged as a company in relation to Ghosn's alleged financial crimes.

Japanese securities regulators recently recommended Nissan be fined 2.4 billion yen (about $24 million Cdn) over disclosure documents from 2014 to 2017. Nissan has said it accepted the penalty and had corrected its securities documents in May.

The company's sales and profits have tumbled and its brand image is tarnished. It has acknowledged lapses in its governance and has promised to improve its transparency.

Another former Nissan executive, Greg Kelly, an American, was arrested at the same time as Ghosn and is awaiting trial. He has said he is innocent.

Hiroto Saikawa, who replaced Ghosn as head of Nissan, announced his resignation in September after financial misconduct allegations surfaced against him related to dubious income. He has not been charged with any crime.

The conviction rate in Japan exceeds 99 per cent and winning an acquittal through a lengthy appeals process could take years. Rights activists in Japan and abroad say Japan's judicial system does not presume innocence enough and relies heavily on long detentions that lead to false confessions.

The charges Ghosn faces carry a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison.

The other allegations against him involve payments to a Saudi dealership, as well as funds paid to an Oman business that purportedly were diverted to entities run by Ghosn.

Ghosn has said that the compensation was never decided, that Nissan never suffered losses from the investments and that all the payments were for legitimate business services.

Sweden Drops Rape Charges Against Assange; UN Says Charges Should be Investigated

UN torture envoy demands ‘full accountability & compensation’

after Sweden drops rape probe against Assange

FILE PHOTO: Supporters of WikiLeaks founder Assange demonstrate in front of the Ecuadorian presidential palace in Quito, 2018 © Reuters / Daniel Tapia

The UN’s Special Rapporteur on torture has called for a “full investigation” into the role Sweden played in driving WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange into asylum and eventual custody, after the rape case against him was dropped.

Swedish prosecutors announced on Tuesday that they would drop a dubious rape inquiry against Assange, as oral testimony against the publisher had “weakened,” and corroborating evidence was not strong enough to pursue a case. 

A Swedish arrest warrant was issued against assange in 2010, and a British court upheld a decision to extradite him in 2012. Threatened with what many saw as a politically motivated extradition, Assange sought refuge in London’s Ecuadorian embassy.

“Today’s collapse of Sweden’s #Assange investigation was inevitable,” rapporteur Nils Melzer tweeted on Tuesday. “Given its gross arbitrariness, there must now be a full investigation, and accountability & compensation for the harm inflicted on #JulianAssange.”

Melzer had previously claimed that Assange was subjected to “psychological torture” and had his due process rights “systematically violated” by the governments of Britain and Sweden. The WikiLeaks founder is still languishing in a maximum security unit at Belmarsh prison, awaiting a hearing on extradition to the US, where he potentially faces 175 years behind bars for publishing leaked military documents.

In a document tweeted by Melzer, the envoy accuses Sweden of “actively and knowingly” contributing to Assange’s torture, and accuses prosecutors there of working in tandem with Britain’s Crown Prosecutorial Service to keep the case against Assange alive in the face of exculpatory evidence.

With the rape case against him dropped, some commentators have warned that the path to extradition to the US may now be clearer. WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson told supporters that their focus should now shift to the most important “threat” that Assange was "warning about for years: the belligerent prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the First Amendment."

UK Wants Pakistan to Take Back Thousands of Migrants Who Overstayed Visas – Pakistan FM

This is the work of Sajid Javid, whom I consider the best candidate to be the next PM

Pakistani men are responsible for the systematic rape, gang-rape, drugging and sexual abuse of thousands of little British girls in several cities around England. Being able to deport them more easily is a good thing.

Revellers attend an event in Trafalgar Square to the end of Ramadan, June 8, 2019

© ZUME Press / Tom Nicholson

The British government has asked Pakistan to sign a treaty that would allow it to send thousands of Pakistani migrants with expired UK visas back to their home country, says Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi.

Qureshi said he recently discussed the treaty with UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid, and appeared to support the measure, adding that it could be helpful for Pakistanis looking to stay in the UK on visas.

“We have initiated dialogue on this,” Qureshi told a press conference at the Pakistan High Commission in London on Tuesday. “This will help those who are genuine visa applicants. This will help Pakistan.”

Qureshi noted that an extradition treaty is also needed between Pakistan and Britain, which he said has been one of the “biggest obstacles” for the two countries. He stressed the need to build on a prisoner swap arrangement that already exists.

Tensions flared with Pakistan over the summer of 2018 when Britain, citing the lack of an extradition treaty, declined to deport former Pakistani Finance Minister Ishaq Dar back to his home country, where he was wanted in connection to a graft probe.

Though reliable estimates are notoriously difficult to obtain for illegal immigrant populations, a 2007 London School of Economics study estimated there were some 533,000 “irregular” or undocumented immigrants in the UK. The country also has the largest Pakistani expat population in Europe, totalling around 1.2 million legal residents, but it is not clear how many currently live in the UK without visas.

Fugitive Indian Billionaire Could Soon End Up in Mumbai Jail… If UK Finds Cell Good Enough

Corruption is Everywhere - Certainly in India

Wealthy people have a completely different justice system from the rest of us. Like Jeffrey Epstein, who trafficked dozens, if not hundreds of underage girls to wealthy and famous people, and was sentenced to spend a few months sleeping in a luxury jail cell while being able to leave and go to his luxury office all day. 

FILE PHOTO: Nirav Modi is driven away from Westminster Magistrates Court in London © AFP / Tolga Akmen

The UK court has extended the custody of notorious diamond dealer Nirav Modi as it seeks to ensure that he will be held in acceptable prison conditions before it rules on the extradition of the fugitive billionaire back to India.

“There is no reason why it [India’s jail plans for Nirav] should not be answered within 14 days,” Judge Emma Arbuthnot said, adding that Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai would be the “obvious candidate.”

Last year, Arbuthnot issued a similar request to Indian authorities before approving the extradition request of another fugitive – liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya, who had complained of inhumane prison conditions back home. In his case, India provided a video of the exact cell in which the former member of the Upper House of the Parliament was to be held. Mallya, who left India in March 2016 with debts of more than $1 billion, continues to fight the extradition order. The next hearing to decide his fate will be held on July 31.

Modi and Mallya might soon become prison mates if the judge Arbuthnot approves billionaire jeweler's extradition on July 29. For now, she has extended Modi's custody until June 27. Modi, who fled India last year and was only detained in London in March, is wanted over an alleged scam against Punjab National Bank (PNB), in which the diamond billionaire used fraudulent paperwork to obtain buyer’s credit for £2bn ($2.6bn).

If extradited, both men are in for a royal treatment at Mumbai's largest and oldest prison built in 1926. To house celebrity inmates and other high-profile prisoners, Arthur Road Jail has constructed a special cell block, consisting of individual 15x10 feet units. The cells have long French windows closer to the ceiling to ensure plenty of daylight and fresh air. They also come with other ‘luxuries’ previously unheard of.

“Exhaust and ceiling fans have been fitted to keep the rooms cool,” director general of prisons SN Pandey noted last month. “The other facilities include a commode, wash basin with 24x7 water supply as well as pure drinking water.”

'Now we are fully ready to accommodate the high-profile fugitive offenders while complying with global prison standards.'