Interview with international model Andreja Pejic: I think standing behind Assange and Manning is where we should all be By Sue Phillips and Will Marshall 7 February 2020

World Socialist Web Site writers Sue Phillips and Will Marshall had the opportunity in January to discuss the campaign to free persecuted WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning, as well as broader political issues, with internationally-acclaimed model Andreja Pejic.

Pejic was in Melbourne to visit her family and as a celebrity guest at the gala opening of the National Gallery of Victoria Internationals summer exhibition, Crossing Lines.

Wikipedia notes: Before coming out as a transwoman in late 2013, Pejic was known as the first completely androgynous supermodel. Today she is one of the most recognised transgender models in the world. She has appeared on the front cover of international editions ofElle,Marie Claire,Harpers Bazaar,LOfficielandFashion.

In May 2015, Pejic became the first transgender model profiled byVogue. In 2016, Pejic was awarded Best International Female Model by fashion magazineGQ Portugal. The following year she was the first transgender woman to appear on the cover ofGQ. Pejic made her major film debut in the 2018 crime thriller filmThe Girl in the Spiders Web.

Pejic was born in Tuzla, in the Bosnian region of Yugoslavia in August 1991, just prior to the outbreak of ethno-nationalist civil war. Her family was forced to flee as refugees to Serbia. Along with her mother, her older brother and grandmother, she migrated to Australia in the aftermath of the 1999 US-NATO war against Serbia.

Pejic grew up in the working-class suburb of Broadmeadows in Melbourne. After completing her secondary schooling at University High, Pejic was accepted to study medicine at the University of Melbourne. Pejic deferred her university study after she was scouted as a model while working part-time at McDonalds.

Pejic is a socialist-minded artist who is an outspoken and principled advocate for transgender rights. She has spoken out strongly against identity politics, emphasising the domination and centrality of class division in understanding capitalist society.

In December, Pejic attended a Socialist Equality Party (SEP) public meeting in Melbourne in defence of Assange and Manning with her brother Igor, and her mother Jadranka.

WSWS: Thanks very much for giving us your time to discuss the critical issue of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. Could you speak about the significance of their exposures of war crimes in the Middle East?

Andreja Pejic: I think what Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning have done is huge for democratic principles and human rights. It is a thing that we are sort of ignoring. Its like this big elephant in the room. We are told about the crimes of different dictatorshipslike Russia, or Iran or Chinabut what were ignoring are the imperialist war crimes, the crimes by Western governments. These things need to be confronted if were going to fight for a better society. It cant be swept under the rug.

WSWS: Do you see any connection between the attempts to silence Assange and Manning and the escalating US war drive against Iran?

AP: Yes, I feel that America is in a political crisis. Obviously, we have already had a huge economic crisis in 2008 and this is paving the road towards the destruction of democracy and towards an authoritarian system. I have always known that Western interventions were sham from a young age. It was nothing new to me, I guess. But slowly people are beginning to wake up that the US military is not spreading democracy in these places. If you look at Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syriawhere are these thriving democracies they were fighting for?

WSWS: Could you explain your own experience as a refugee from the US-NATO war in Yugoslavia and the impact that it had on your political outlook?

AP: I was born six months before the start of the Yugoslav wars. My mum was Serbian and my dad was Croatian. They grew up in a country that had been united for 50 years and it was normal for them to have their marriage. Then the war breaks out and she has to take my brother and me and my grandmother to Serbia and it split my family up.

They thought that it was going to be a two-month war, something that would be resolved very quickly. But it ended up as a five-year civil warthe worst war in Europe since World War IIand we ended up growing up in a refugee camp. I just remember this terribly tense situation as we were growing up, with the national divides and the racism from all sides.

That experience propelled me, especially when we came to Australia, to want to know what happened and to find a better explanation than blaming any particular nationality. So, I researched and that led me to discover you guys [the WSWS and SEP]. It propelled me to learn about history. Why did the Soviet Union fall? Why did the system that [Yugoslav leader Josip Broz] Tito upheld break down? Why did this horrible war happen?

This had a huge impact on me politically. I discovered the imperialist crimes in that whole situation. What the West did when it approved Slovenias secession [from Yugoslavia in 1991] and then, later, what the US did to Serbia with the NATO bombings. It was horrific.

I was wondering why a society which was claiming to be so democratic could do something like that. Why so many so-called progressively-minded people in the West supported that war? I think it was one of the first wars that the liberal intelligentsia got behind. I was searching for a better explanation.

I now have this huge aversion to nationalism. People always ask me in interviews, are you Croatian, are you Serbian, are you Australian? I always answer them that this is where I was born; this is where I spent my childhood; this is where I spent my teenage years; and now I live in America. I dont think national identity is a healthy thing because Ive seen a country destroyed by it. Nationalism was exploited to divide the country and to divide my family.

WSWS: You left the Balkans as a refugee and you have returned? What is your overviewfrom what the Balkans was, to what it is now?

AP: The country still hasnt recovered from the war. The economic level and the cultural level are much lower than it was. The democracy is corrupt and social conditions are terrible. The inequality is huge. The political arena is dominated by criminals.

WSWS: Its been revealed that while Assange was in the Ecuadorian embassy the security firm UC Global was secretly spying on and filming him, and all of that was being live streamed to the CIA.

AP: Everything thats been done to Julian Assange and to Chelsea Manning is appalling. Julian being imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison, in the worst conditions, denied access to his legal representation and the huge smear campaign in the media and politically to destroy his name. Chelsea Manning being hauled in front of a secret court, imprisoned again and fined $1,000 each day. Its appalling.

WSWS: There have been many statements by Nils Melzer and doctors internationally about Assanges health. Hes been living for a decade under conditions of psychological torture. What do you think about this situation? Theyve called for his immediate release, or at the very least, be transferred to a university hospital to receive proper medical care.

AP: These are extraordinary times to be living in. To see the British government and the US governmentwho are supposed to be leaders in the democratic worldto completely break the law and destroy journalists and whistleblowers for their own gains is incredibly discouraging.

WSWS: Could you speak about the Australian government which has refused to lift a finger to defend Assange to defend an Australian citizen, going right back to the Gillard Labor government?

AP: I was recently asked to do an interview for Harpers Bazaar. They wanted to do an article about womens voices and they wanted to include Julia Gillard. And I said No because I dont want to be in the same article as her because of the situation that is happening and her role in it. She could have stepped in to protect Assange.

The Australian government has failed to protect one of its citizens. It has protected journalists before, but it has failed to do that in Assanges case. Its just extraordinary. The level of conspiracy amounts to an internationally organised witch-hunt.

I think Labor should be putting up a real opposition to the governments failure to protect Australias greatest anti-war journalist from political persecution. It should admit its past failure and work to expose this issue to the biggest audience, so that a movement can be built to stop the extradition.

WSWS: In addition to your successful modelling career, youve been known for speaking out and promoting transgender rights. In social media and public statements, youve spoken strongly against identity politics, emphasising the centrality of class. Can you explain that further?

AP: Ive been open about my experience, about my medical issues and personal things, because I felt that I had a social responsibility and opportunity to open peoples minds and hearts to something that is very different. But at the same time, there isnt an understanding that minorities are being manipulated by the Democratic Party and by such forces to paint a better picture of them. I think that there isnt an understanding of class, and how minorities are also divided into classes like the rest of the population.

At the end of the day, a transgender worker, or an African-American worker, or any minority worker, has more in common with all other workers than they do with this upper-middle-class layer. In the framework of identity politics, all women are thought to be in the same situation, all trans people or all LGBTI people are thought to be in the same situation, but theyre not. They are divided into classes just as much.

WSWS: Could you speak about how identity politics and the allegations against Assange vis--vis the Swedish case were used?

AP: I remember posting about Assange on Instagram and getting criticised by feminists and by Hillary Clinton supporters. How can you, they said, who has said so many progressive things, and stood for something, protect someone they feel is a rapist, or caused Donald Trump to be elected, and ruined Hilary Clintons campaign?

At the end of the day, Assange and Manning have sacrificed their lives for our democratic rights and to expose for all peoplefrom every race and every gender and sexualitythe truth about what our governments are doing. Hilary Clinton is the reason that Trump got elected. If she has committed crimes, she needs to answer for them, not the other way around.

Where theres a leader of an African nation, or an Eastern European nation, and they commit a war of aggression, we expect them to go before an international tribunal and face war crimes charges. But when it comes to Western politicians, we expect them to go golfing, or do speeches, and cash in. This is completely unfair.

Assange wasnt even charged. These were allegations and, from what Ive read about the case, there are so many holes and theres been a huge cover-up. He was OK going to Sweden and facing these allegations if Sweden was not going to extradite him to the US. Thats a fact that is left out. And now, of course, theyve dropped the allegations because there wasnt a basis to them.

WSWS: In December, it was Chelsea Mannings 32nd birthday. Shes now been in jail in Virginia for nine months. She has taken a principled stand and refused to appear before the grand jury in the US. She has said that no matter what happens to her, she will not break her principles. How do you see Mannings role?

AP: Chelsea Manning is one of the most inspirational people from the same community as me. What shes done is incredibly inspiring and incredibly brave. To uphold her principles, to not go the easy way, to endure torturethe UN charged the US government, or accused the US government, of torturing her. My heart goes out to her. I wish there was more support for her within the LGBTI community.

WSWS: There has been a certain abandonment of Chelsea Manning by the gay and transgender organisations that have links to the Democratic Party.

AP: This is incredibly disheartening. I remember there was a gay pride parade in New York, and I was hoping that there would be more statements in support of her. I know that Manning has done things with American Vogue. She has done things with a lot of publications who are in fashion which, when she was pardoned by Obama, celebrated her.

We need to keep celebrating her, and we need to support her. Its sad to see how little thinking, how little consciousness, there is in this whole scenario. Were not supposed to just do what the Democratic Party tells us. We can be independent and think for ourselves.

I didnt want to support the Hillary Clinton campaign. They were trying to get people throughout the celebrity world and in womens rights to support her. I stayed away from that. While I come from a minority in many different waysnot just a gender minorityI cant let that be bigger than the big picture. Considering everything Ive been through in my life, I couldnt get behind a pro-war candidate like Hillary Clinton.

WSWS: What do you think of Bernie Sanders?

AP: I have read a lot about him on the WSWS. Its really interesting that so many young people voted for him, that something they think looks like socialism has become so popular in the West, in the centre of the biggest capitalist country in the world. At the same time, Sanders believes that the Democratic Party can be reformed or that it can swing to the left somehow. Its very hard to imagine that or that we can implement the Scandinavian model in America. If you look at what is happening in Europe, its going the other way. They are dismantling the welfare system.

WSWS: Were you living in the US when Obama was elected?

AP: Yes, I was. With Obama, I think there was this massively successful PR campaign of hope and change. Even people from the Republicans, from the conservative side, got on board, and the whole of the left did. Then he proved to be a huge disappointmentSyria, Yemen and Libya and Guantnamo Bay stayed open. The way the financial crisis was handled was terrible, with Obama giving an endless supply of cash to the banks.

A lot of what Trump is doing was made possible by the actions of the Obama administration. I went to a protest about refugees in Mexico. A lot of those centres were built under Obama. He also deported more immigrants than any other president in the history of the United States. It was a big fat PR campaign.

WSWS: Do you see that there is any relationship between the attacks on Assange and the drive to censor the internet and social media?

AP: Yes, the internet has played a revolutionary role in that it has connected people across the world and exposed them to alternative information. People are starting to question the political and economic system more and more. The governments and ruling elites want to clamp down on that, and stop that from spreading, like all these protests around the world. In France, in Chile, people have had enough.

The internet is there for everyone to share their voices, for information to flow freely, and not to be monopolised by the biggest players or controlled by the biggest governments. Its probably the greatest question of our time, and especially with young people. I grew up with the internet, and it taught me everything I wanted to know. I think there is a huge power in information and its this power that they want to take away from us.

WSWS: Pamela Anderson, Roger Waters, John Pilger, M.I.A. have spoken out in defence of Julian Assange. Could you speak about the importance of their stand and whether others in the artistic community should speak out?

AP: I saw Pamela on the television show the View and she was really good. Its beautiful to see that. I hope that more people do it. I hope that more well-known people with an even bigger audience come to his defence because there were people supporting him. Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga went to visit Julian Assange and I remember being very much inspired by that. I think we need to bring that back. He cant be extradited to the United States because we all know what would happen in that scenario. It would be a tragic loss for the human race.

WSWS: What do you think will happen if Assange gets extradited?

AP: Well, theyve charged him under the Espionage Act. He is facing 175 years in prison. It could even be capital punishment. Already his health has deteriorated and he is in such a horrific state. Under no circumstances should he be extradited.

WSWS: Is there pressure within the fashion industry against speaking out in defence of Assange and Manning?

AP: Theres a lot of people in my world who just do not understand, who are well meaning and want to speak out but dont have that political consciousness. Its sad to see people who have an understanding of it but have held their tongues. Im hoping that this changes. That would make things easier for the younger generation. It would make things easier for this fight. I think that these protests and opposition things that are happening sort of propel things in a better direction.

WSWS: How has the World Socialist Web Site impacted on your political outlook?

AP: I discovered the SEP when I went to University High. I was researching socialism at a very young age, because I wanted to know about the Balkans, and the sympathy I had for there. My mum spoke ofand still does, like a lot of people from that areaspeak with nostalgia for that period of their lives in Yugoslavia. I wanted to know what the system was in Yugoslavia, what socialism really meant, what the Soviet Union was and what the history was. And I think I found a SEP flier about your election campaign in Broadmeadows and attended a meeting.

This led me to the website. And I just devoured a lot of the historical things. I think its really interesting to find out what happened in China, what happened in Russia, in Yugoslavia, and the role of Stalinism in setting back socialism.

WSWS: We stress that the fight for the freedom of Assange and Manning is bound up with the mobilisation of the working class. Its not the Labor Party, or parties such as the Greens, that are going to do this.

AP: I think the workers have all the powerthey always have, they still doand people need to understand that. When I talk about these subjects, a lot of people dont really understand what a revolution looks like or what class struggle is. For a long time, I struggled with that idea too and to understand how thats done and how workers are mobilised. The steps toward that are a long process but its incredibly important for anyone progressive to be oriented towards the working class. Theres no way around that, from what Ive learned.

WSWS: Why should socialist-minded artists like you fight for Assange and Mannings defence and freedom?

AP: I would say that its incredibly important to fight for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange to further democracy and to further the cause for a better world. You cant fight for a better world and ignore what theyve accomplished, what theyve done.

We cannot ignore democratic principles and socialist principles and achieve any kind of progress. We have to build on top of them. I think what you and the WSWS have done to defend Assange and Manning is incredibly heroic and incredibly important for the world. This period will go down in history as a huge stain on the governments of the US, and Britain and Australia, in 20 or 30 years down the line.

We live in a very complex world. Theres a lot of confusion and its hard to know where to stand in this huge crisis that is happening, but I think standing behind Assange and Manning is where we should all be.

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

See the article here:
Interview with international model Andreja Pejic: I think standing behind Assange and Manning is where we should all be - World Socialist Web Site

Nazareth.

Maybe something good will come out of the Trump plan, after all. By pushing the Middle East peace process to its logical conclusion, Donald Trump has made crystal clear something that was supposed to have been obscured: that no US administration has ever really seen peace as the objective of its peacemaking.

The current White House is no exception it has just been far more incompetent at concealing its joint strategy with the Israelis. But that is what happens when a glorified used-car salesman, Donald Trump, and his sidekick son-in-law, the schoolboy-cum-businessman Jared Kushner, try selling us the deal of the century. Neither, it seems, has the political or diplomatic guile normally associated with those who rise to high office in Washington.

During aninterviewwith CNNs Fareed Zakaria this week, Kushner dismally failed to cloak the fact that his peace plan was designed with one goal only: to screw the Palestinians over.

The real aim is so transparent that even Zakaria couldnt stop himself from pointing it out. In CNNs words, he noted that no Arab country currently satisfies the requirements Palestinians are being expected to meet in the next four years including ensuring freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, and an independent judiciary.

Trumps senior adviser suddenly found himself confronted with the kind of deadly, unassailable logic usually overlooked in CNN coverage. Zakaria observed:

Isnt this just a way of telling the Palestinians youre never actually going to get a state because if no Arab countries today [are] in a position that you are demanding of the Palestinians before they can be made a state, effectively, its a killer amendment?

Indeed it is.

In fact, the Peace to Prosperity document unveiled last week by the White House is no more than a list of impossible preconditions the Palestinians must meet to be allowed to sit down with the Israelis at the negotiating table. If they dont do so within four years, and quickly reach a deal, the very last slivers of their historic homeland the parts not already seized by Israel can be grabbed too, with US blessing.

Preposterous conditions

Admittedly, all Middle East peace plans in living memory have foisted these kinds of prejudicial conditions on the Palestinians. But this time many of the preconditions are so patently preposterous contradictory even that the usually pliable corporate press corps are embarrassed to be seen ignoring the glaring inconsistencies.

The CNN exchange was so revealing in part because Kushner was triggered by Zakarias observation that the Palestinians had to become a model democracy a kind of idealised Switzerland, while still under belligerent Israeli occupation before they could be considered responsible enough for statehood.

How was that plausible, Zakaria hinted, when Saudi Arabia, despite its appalling human rights abuses, nonetheless remains a close strategic US ally, and Saudi leaders continue to be intimates of the Trump business empire? No one in Washingtonis seriously contemplating removing US recognition of Saudi Arabia because it is a head-chopping, women-hating, journalist-killing religious fundamentalist state.

But Zakaria could have made an even more telling point was he not answerable to CNN executives. There are also hardly any western states that would pass the democratic, human rights-respecting threshold set by the Trump plan for the Palestinians. Nor, of course, would Israel.

Think of Britainsfloutinglast year of a ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague that the Chagos Islanders must be allowed to return home decades after the UK expelled them so the US could build a military base on their land. Or the Windrush scandal, when it was revealed that a UK government hostile environment policy was used to illegally deport British citizens to the Caribbean because of the colour of their skin.

Or what about the US evading due process by holding prisoners offshore at Guantanamo? Or its use oftortureagainst Iraqi prisoners, or its reliance onextraordinary rendition, or itsextrajudicial assassinationsusing drones overseas, including against its own citizens?

Or for that matter, its jailing and extortionatefiningof whistleblower Chelsea Manning, despite the Obama administration granting her clemency. US officials want to force her to testify against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for his role in publishing leaks of US war crimes committed in Iraq, including the shockingCollateral Murdervideo.

And while were talking about Assange and about Iraq

Would the records of either the US or UK stand up to scrutiny if they were subjected to the same standards now required of the Palestinian leadership.

Impertinent questions

But lets fast forward to the heart of the matter. Angered by Zakarias impertinence at mildly questioning the logic of the Trump plan, Kushner let rip.

He called the Palestinian Authority a police state and one that is not exactly a thriving democracy. It would be impossible, he added, for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians until the Palestinians, not Israels occupying army, changed its ways. It was time for the Palestinians to prioritise human rights and democracy, while at the same time submitting completely to Israels belligerent, half-century occupation that violates their rights and undermines any claims Israel might have to being a democracy.

Kushner said:

If they [the Palestinians] dont think that they can uphold these standards, then I dont think we can get Israel to take the risk to recognize them as a state, to allow them to take control of themselves, because the only thing more dangerous than what we have now is a failed state.

Lets take a moment to unpack that short statement to examine its many conceptual confusions.

First, theres the very obvious point that police states and dictatorships are not failed states. Not by a long shot. In fact, police states and dictatorships are usually the very opposite of failed states. Iraq was an extremely able state under Saddam Hussein, in terms both of its ability to provide welfare and educational services and of its ruthless, brutal efficiency in crushing dissent.

Iraq only became a failed state when the US illegally invaded and executed Saddam, leaving a local leadership vacuum that sucked in an array of competing actors who quickly made Iraq ungovernable.

Oppressive by design

Second, as should hardly need pointing out, the PA cant be a police state when it isnt even a state. After all, thats where the Palestinians are trying to get to, and Israel and the US are blocking the way. It is obviously something else. What that something else is brings us to the third point.

Kushner is right that the PA is increasingly authoritarian and uses its security forces in oppressive ways because thats exactly what it was set up to do by Israel and the US.

Palestinians had assumed that the Oslo accords of the mid-1990s would lead to the creation of a sovereign state at the completion of that five-year peace process. But that never happened. Denied statehood ever since, the PA now amounts to nothing more than a security contractor for the Israelis. Its unspoken job is to make the Palestinian people submit to their permanent occupation by Israel.

The self-defeating deal contained in Oslos land for peace formula was this: the PA would build Israeli trust by crushing all resistance to the occupation, and in return Israel would agree to hand over more territory and security powers to the PA.

Bound by its legal obligations, the PA had two possible paths ahead of it: either it would become a state under Israeli licence, or it would serve as a Vichy-like regime suppressing Palestinian aspirations for national liberation. Once the US and Israel made clear they would deny the Palestinians statehood at every turn, the PAs fate was sealed.

Put another way, the point of Oslo from the point of view of the US and Israel was to make the PA an efficient, permanent police state-in-waiting, and one that lacked the tools to threaten Israel.

And thats exactly what was engineered. Israel refused to let the Palestinians have a proper army in case, bidding to gain statehood, that army turned its firepower on Israel. Instead a US army general, Keith Dayton, was appointed to oversee thetrainingof the Palestinian police forces to help the PA better repress internal dissent those Palestinians who might try to exercise their right in international law to resist Israels belligerent occupation.

Presumably, it is a sign of that US programmes success that Kushner can now describe the PA as a police state.

Freudian slip

In his CNN interview, Kushner inadvertently highlighted the Catch-22 created for the Palestinians. The Trump peace process penalises the Palestinian leadership for their very success in achieving the targets laid out for them in the Oslo peace process.

Resist Israels efforts to deprive the Palestinians of statehood and the PA is classified as aterrorist entityand denied statehood. Submit to Israels dictates and oppress the Palestinian people to prevent them demanding statehood and the PA is classified as apolice stateand denied statehood. Either way, statehood is unattainable. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Kushners use of the term failed state is revealing too, in a Freudian slip kind of way. Israel doesnt just want to steal some Palestinian land before it creates a small, impotent Palestinian state. Ultimately, what Israel envisions for the Palestinians is no statehood at all, not even of the compromised, collaborationist kind currently embodied by the PA.

An unabashed partisan

Kushner, however, has done us a favour inadvertently. He has given away the nature of the US bait-and-switch game towards the Palestinians. Unlike Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Aaron David Miller previous American Jewish diplomats overseeing US peace efforts Kushner is notpretending to be an honest broker. He is transparently, unabashedly partisan.

In an earlier CNN interview, one last week with Christiane Amanpour, Kushner showed just how personal is his antipathy towards the Palestinians and their efforts to achieve even the most minimal kind of statehood in a tiny fraction of their historic homeland.

He sounded more like a jilted lover, or an irate spouse forced into couples therapy, than a diplomat in charge of a complex and incendiary peace process. He struggled to contain his bitterness as he extemporised a well-worn but demonstrably false Israeli talking-point that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

He told Amanpour: Theyre going to screw up another opportunity, like theyve screwed up every other opportunity that theyve ever had in their existence.

The reality is that Kushner, like the real author of the Trump plan, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would prefer that the Palestinians had never existed. He would rather this endless peace charade could be discarded, freeing him to get on with enriching himself with his Saudi pals.

And if the Trump plan can be made to work, he and Netanyahu might finally get their way.

Continued here:
Duh, Jared! So who built the PA as a 'police state'? - CounterPunch

Voices from all over the world, including human rights organisations, have been condemning the treatment of Julian Assange, writes Dr John Jiggens.

IN A WATERSHED CASE for journalistic freedom, the hearing for Julian Assanges extradition to the U.S. begins in London on 24 February 2020. If extradited to the U.S., Assange will face 18 charges under the 1917 Espionage Act and a potential sentence of 175 years in prison for crimes that include some of the greatest pieces of citizen journalism of the 21st century: the Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Logs, Cablegate and the famous collateral murder video.

Although Assange is not a U.S. citizen, the U.S. has pressured its client states into misusing their legal systems to corral Assange for nine tortuous years, asserting its imperial right to prosecute and punish a journalist who dared to reveal its war crimes. The Espionage Act charges are all about journalism: Assanges crime is, was and has always been his courageous journalism.

While 12 people were massacred in the collateral murder video, none of the perpetrators has been prosecuted. Meanwhile, the whistle-blower and her publisher have been relentlessly hounded for a decade: Chelsea Manning attempted suicide in prison, while Assanges family have been shocked by his deterioration.

In his report on the treatment of Assange, Nils Melzer, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, declared that in 20 years of working with victims of war, violence and political persecution, he has never seen a group of democratic States (Sweden, the UK, the USA) ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.

Mr Melzer declared their systematic misuse of legal procedures was a form of legal torture and warned that Mr Assanges human rights would be seriously violated if he was extradited to the United States.

Mr Melzer stated:

My most urgent concern is that, in the United States, Mr Assange would be exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

John Shipton, the father of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, has condemned the U.S. prosecution of Assange as legal persecution and called on the Australian Government and the Australian public to ensure the gross violation of his sons human rights ceases. Mr Shipton, who returned recently from the UK, described the serious mistreatment Julian was subjected to in the UK prison system:

It is torture: 22 hours a day, being banged up by yourself, staring at the ceiling. In order to maintain his stability and health and mentality, Julian asks us how far it is between Madrid and Paris and we tell him the answer, and he sets out to walk that, walking up and down his cell, counting the steps in a journey to Paris. His cell is three metres long and he walks that in three strides.

As part of the psychological torture, Assange was intentionally kept isolated by the UK prison authorities and his contact with other prisoners was minimised. When he had visitors, the gaol hallways were deliberately cleared first, as John Shipton recounted:

When I go to meet him, they clear all the hallways and escort him with a guard on each side down these empty, black, echoing hallways into the meeting room. Above your head there are high-fidelity cameras to enable lip-reading if they want and every three metres there are general fidelity cameras.

In his cell, every 30 minutes someone opens a peephole and looks into his cell, 24 hours a day. These procedures are described by Nils Melzer as torture. Theres been nine years of torture of steadily increasing intensity. Our government knows this, they have Nils Melzers report, yet they repeat like a mantra, due process, due process.

Due process is never followed in Julians case. Never.

Mr Shiptons most recent due process concern was over reports that Julian was hot-boxed before his December court appearance. (Hot-boxing refers to keeping someone in an overheated situation and denying them water so they become dehydrated and confused.)

In his last court appearance, Julian couldnt remember his name and his birth date. His lawyers, Phillip Segal and Greg Barns, along with ten other barristers, wrote that, in their combined 50 years of legal practice defending people, they had never seen a prisoner brought before the court in such a state.

Julian Assange was always aware of the U.S.'s hidden attention to try him under the Espionage Act, says John Shipton.

He could see the Swedish allegations were part of this U.S. ruse; this is why he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy:

For nine years, he has realised if he goes to the U.S., that is the end. He has fought for nine years not to go to the United States. He knows it means death.

Another voice concerned about Assanges treatment in the U.S. is Amnesty Internationals Deputy Director for Europe, Massimo Moratti, who warned the United Kingdom would be in breach of its obligations to protect Mr Assanges human rights should he be extradited to the United States:

The British authorities must acknowledge the real risks of serious human rights violations Julian Assange would face if sent to the USA and reject the extradition request. The UK must comply with the commitment its already made that he would not be sent anywhere he could face torture or other ill treatment.

However, the contempt for Assange's human rights by the UK, the U.S., Sweden (and Australia) are well demonstrated: in 2016, when a U.N. working party ruled that the British blockade of the Ecuadorian Embassy where Assange had sought asylum amounted to arbitrary and illegal detention, both the UK and Sweden ignored the U.N. ruling. It was further demonstrated by their dismissal of the report by Nils Melzer and Massimo Moratti, who warned the United Kingdom would be in breach of its obligations to protect Mr Assanges human rights should he be extradited to the United States.

Melzer's advice to the UK in November 2019 was:

When both States realise that the way they have handled this affair is in violation of the convention on torture, they must take measures to alleviate the psychological pressures against Mr Assange. He must be given adequate means to prepare his defence. He cannot be under constant threats of extradition to the U.S. where he is not going to receive a fair trial. It is very important to start alleviating the pressure that is being put on him that is not necessary and is not in line with the rule of law.

Last week, the European Parliamentary Assembly backed the U.N. judgement about the inhuman treatment of Julian Assange and called for his immediate release.

In a report from the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media condemning the British treatment of Assange, it recommended to:

...ensure respect of, the right of journalists to protect their sources, and develop an appropriate normative, judicial and institutional framework to protect whistleblowers and whistleblowing facilitators, in line with Assembly Resolution 2300 (2019) Improving the protection of whistleblowers all over Europe; in this respect, consider that the detention and criminal prosecution of Mr Julian Assange sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, and join the recommendation of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment who declared, on 1 November 2019, that Mr Assange's extradition to the United States must be barred and that he must be promptly released.

Dr John Jiggensis a writer and journalist currently working in the community newsroom atBay-FMin Byron Bay.

Support independent journalism Subscribeto IA.

Here is the original post:
Ending the torture of Julian Assange - Independent Australia

I couldnt get to the January 25th antiwar rally. Viewing photographs of that sparsely attended rally drives home the fact that the antiwar movement is nearly dead in the US. Perhaps it is dead and I cannot bring myself to accept that fact? Only days later, bellicose Trump presenteda laughable plan for peace in the Middle East(New York Times, January 28, 2020) that endorsed the land-grabbing policy of Israel that has been a de facto reality on the ground for decades. Only a few weeks before, Trump had ordered the assassination of an Iranian general (Suleimani) and others in drone attacks.AbrahamLincoln said that assassination was international outlawry in 1863, but the lessons of history or moral compass of so-called contemporary leaders never gave that pronouncement much attention.

Following Trumps election in 2016, many left protesters and theorists advised that doing anything material (protesting, writing, working for left causes, etc.) was of the utmost importance in the face of the far-rights fascistic juggernaut. Not so! Withoutnonviolentcivil disobedience in the streets, a movement withers and remains ineffective. The failures of the peace, womens, environmental, and pro-immigrant movements are examples. Mass incarceration is yet another glaring example. Thats how fascism works. It eats up, intimidates, and marginalizes otherwise valid movements. Then it outlaws those movements. A friend from college told me that she was afraid of violence breaking out at the first womens march in 2017 and did not attend.

Antiwar activism became so diminished under Obama (How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement,Washington Post,August 29, 2013) that studies documented the retreat from the streets, even as his administration conducted a troop surge in Afghanistan, a county that has been devastated as much by the US as it has been by warlords, the Taliban, and the former Soviet Union. US support for warlords during the Soviet war there left an opening for the ongoing destruction of that country that continues today. A training ground and base for the murderous henchmen of al-Qaeda was yet another outcome of endless wars there. According to theGuardian, the USdropped a record number of bombs in Afghanistan last yearand the reaction of the remnants of the antiwar movement seems to have been a yawn.

The late antiwar demonstrator and co-founder of the Yippies, Abbie Hoffman, said that the young must be there. The young never came back to the streets in large numbers following the Vietnam War and with no skin in the game theyre not likely to return soon. Readers may cite the enormous outpouring of people on the streets during the Nuclear Freeze Movement, or the protest in the run-up to the 1990-1991 war in Iraq (first Gulf War), but neither of those movements changed the reality of war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In both movements, an older and graying cohort of demonstrators seemed to be the norm.

What is the effect of street demonstrations and rallies in 2020? I think the answer is likely nothing or close to nothing at all. I would like it to be otherwise, but the handwriting is on the wall and it has been there for sometime now. It is no longer a case of the White House feeling besieged by protest as it felt during the Vietnam era. A guess is that not one person in the White House gives a damn about street demonstrations anymore and they arent about to break into a sweat over the issue. Trump orders the assassination noted above and not many seem to care and nothing even near a critical mass arises.

Anyone, or any group, that is perceived to be a threat to the military-industrial-financial complex will be dealt with in a Draconian manner, or simply dismissed by the mass media. The case of Chelsea Manning comes to mind. She languishes in jail and the government seems to be content at having thrown away the key to her cell. Where is the outrage?

When people take direct action against the military-industrial-financial complex such as the anti-nuclear Ploughshares Movement, they are likely to be imprisoned for years. If radical environmentalists dare to do something illegal such as trashing SUVs in a dealers lot, then the same Draconian forces will come down with the wrath of God on their heads. But the political and economic systems around the world can despoil the environment with abandon and nearly nothing is done!

During the Vietnam War, there were contending forces beyond the street demonstrations of the 1960s and early 1970s. One movement, and I was a proud member of that group, actively resisted the war in meaningful ways such as draft and military resistance. Others, such as the Weathermen, committed and planned incredibly dangerous, illegal, and counterproductive acts such as planning an attack on a dance at a military base in the US, and killing police and a security guard during the Brinks robbery (carried out by former WeatherUndergroundmembers and others) in New York. They killed three of their own while manufacturing bombs in the West Village of New York City. One faction of the Weathermen thought a Maoist movement among youth in the US would come out of their actions. Such delusional thinking!

Sometimes attacking innocent people in war zones has long been the modus operandi of the US government, one such attack is graphically illustrated in Iraq called Collateral Murder.Drone warfare is another tactic that the government uses and almost always involves the death of innocent civilians in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. Illegitimate state-sponsored violence has generally been accepted by many people in the service of empire and profit. Noticethat the vile Trump does not face impeachmentfor acts of war outside of the rules of war, incitement to violence, or profiting from the office of president. The ruling class wouldnever allow those charges, and where are the thousands who need to be inWashington, D.C. to protest that travesty?

Go here to read the rest:
To March or Not to March: Why are the Streets Nearly Empty? - CounterPunch

On this edition of the Dissenter Weekly, host and Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola highlights whistleblowers within the Democratic Party, who have exposed malfeasance in the Iowa Caucuses and alleged toxic workplace culture in the 2020 Milwaukee DNC Host Committee.

Gosztola highlights women staffers who sent a letter to the board of directors for the host committee that led to the firing of two individuals. He also shares the example of Chris Schwartz, a Black Hawk County supervisor who provided a delegate count from his county yet received no explanation from Democrats as to why those were not reported. He also embarrassed state Democrats.

The state party is now being forced to walk back their error of giving Bernie Sanders delegates to Deval Patrick, who received zero votes in Black Hawk County, Schwartz wrote on Twitter.

Later in the program, Gosztola describes how the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans to open around a million acres of land in southwest Colorado to oil and gas drilling.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a group known for its work representing environmental whistleblowers in government agencies, published records that how the regulatory agency is ignoring objections from Colorado Governor Jared Polis and the public. BLM is overruling field managers because it is line with the administrations agenda to decrease regulations as a service to the fossil fuel industry.

The episode concludes with an update on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assanges extradition case. Prominent Germans appealed for his release from the Belmarsh prison in the United Kingdom.

Gosztola will travel to London in February to cover a week-long extradition hearing for Assange. The case the United States has brought against him threatens global press freedom.

Help us fund his trip by making a donation or becoming a Shadowproof member.

Dissenter Weekly airs every Thursday at 4pm ET on YouTube and Facebook, and covers whistleblower and press freedom news from that week.

DNC Host Committee Remove Two Leaders For Creating Toxic Workplace After Whistleblowers Complain

Bureau Of Land Management Overrules Staff And Orders More Colorado Drilling

U.S. Education Department Whistleblower Forced Out After Exposing Push Against Transgender Student Athletes

FAA Whistleblower Says He Was Prevented From Inspecting Helicopter Before Hawaii Crash

US Labor Department Orders Michigan School District To Pay, Reinstate Whistleblower Who Warned Of Asbestos Hazard

Prominent Germans appeal for Julian Assanges release

***

Chelsea Manning has been in jail for 330 days. She owes $221,000 in fines.Julian Assange has been in jail for 301 days, since he was expelled from the Ecuador embassy in London.

Send tips and feedback to editor@shadowproof.com

This show is brought to you by Shadowproof.com, a 100% reader-funded press organization. If you enjoy our work, you can support us with a donation or by subscribing for $5/month or more:https://shadowproof.com/donate

Here is the original post:
Dissenter Weekly: Whistleblowers In Iowa And The DNC Host Committee - Shadowproof

Janine Jackson interviewed Electronic Frontier Foundations Rainey Reitman about the persecution of Glenn Greenwald for the January 31, 2020, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

MP3 Link

Janine Jackson: The pathway to Brazils presidency was cleared for neofascist Jair Bolsonaro by the imprisonment of former president and popular candidate Lula da Silva, on charges of corruption that many saw from the start as spurious and politically motivated. It is then a very big deal that information given to journalist Glenn Greenwald revealed collusion between the prosecutors and the judge in the case. Since Greenwalds revelations, Lula has been released from prison, and Greenwald has been harassed and threatened, including by Bolsonaro himself. But his right to report has been upheld.

Now, though, public prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint, charging Greenwald with something called cybercrime. Here to help us see what this case might mean for journalists who challenge the powerfuland for us, the public that rely on themis Rainey Reitman, chief program officer for Electronic Frontier Foundation and co-founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. She joins us by phone from San Francisco. Welcome to CounterSpin, Rainey Reitman.

Rainey Reitman: Thanks for having me, Janine.

JJ: I know were still learning, but free press advocates like yourself have seen enough to sound alarms about Glenn Greenwalds case, in itself and for its implications for all journalists. What is meant by cybercrime here? Is it just a different dressing for trying to prosecute reporting?

RR: Thats a really good question. Weve seen many different governments around the world push back against journalists who expose corruption in their areas. And so its not unusual to see prosecutions or to see harassment or public attacks on investigative journalists, especially ones that are very effective at exposing government corruption, the way Greenwald certainly has been.

Whats really interesting about this case is that theyre using this tool of cybercrime laws, which are laws that are meant to criminalize malicious hacking. So you could think of someone who breaks into a system to steal data for malicious intent in order to commit crimes, or for any number of other reasons. And these laws are designed to go after malicious hackers, and weve seen them be enacted around the world, and they often carry pretty stiff penalties. And so its really worrisome that this is an instance where were seeing an investigative journalist basically being charged as if he were a malicious hacker.

JJ: Well, theyre saying that Greenwald was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to hack telephones, that he didnt just accept material from his source. Now, Greenwald, as listeners will know, a founder of the Intercept and the Intercept Brasil, is a lawyer, and hes been around the block. And hes been very clear that his source that he relied on for this reporting had all the materials when he first came to him. And, in fact, Brazilian law protects that reporter/source relationship, as the supreme court in the country even said.

So it sounds as thoughhe certainly denies the idea that he was encouraging his source to hack into phones, which sounds like that would have to be proven to meet the level of cybercrime.

RR: Thats right. I think one thing thats really important to remember here is that investigative journalists, they communicate with sources quite a bit, and thats very normal. It is typical for an investigative journalist to verify the information theyre getting, and find out whats going to be in this data, why is it important, and have a bit of a back and forth. So the fact that he was communicating with this anonymous source isnt in any way problematic.

And theres nothing that weve seen in any of the chat logs that our lawyerswe have a wonderful attorney based in Brazil, who did an analysis of the criminal complaint, the original Portuguese complaintand theres nothing that we saw that was in any way indicating that Greenwald was urging the source to engage in any illegal activity, rather that this was more about confirming that he had received the documents that he needed in order to do the reporting on it, and verifying some of that.

I think that theres some questions about whats going to play out here, right. I mean, one of the things at the crux of this case is that the original leaks were about judicial misconduct. And so its worrisome to see an investigative reporter being brought through the same court systems that he exposed as having misconduct in them.

JJ: Or as the New York Times says, raised questions and cast doubt, which I thought was a bit gentle. Well, James Risen had an op-ed in the New York Times saying that Greenwalds case, and that of Julian Assangealso charged with aiding his source, Chelsea Manning, to access a military databasethat theyre based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources; he called it a detour around the First Amendment.

And what I thought was also interesting, was Risen says governments like Bonsonaros and Donald Trumps seem to have decided to experiment with such draconian antipress tactics by trying them out first on aggressive and disagreeable figures.

And here to me is where the public can come in. Its worrisome if we start thinking, Well, I dont really like Julian Assange, or Greenwald has an axe to grind,; we have to keep a clear eye on the principles here.

RR: I think thats completely right. If we get down to it, these are relatively new tactics being employed to silence journalists who are confronting existing power structures. And a free society, when its functioning well, can tolerate investigative journalists, even those who are, as Risen says, disagreeable.

And, in fact, I think a free society thrives when it gets articles about corruption and misconduct, and theres a sense that if something is wrong, theres a way for there to be sort of a safety valve: Sources can go to the media, present true facts, and the public will find out. The idea that theres this big backlash, using this relatively untested tool to silence journalists, is pretty concerning, and its something that I think were all waiting to see how it plays out, because, of course, Julian Assange, that case is not over yet. This case against Greenwald is not over yet. And so it will really be such a big deal if we see that laws designed for malicious hacking can basically be used to shutter journalists.

JJ: Part of whats happened is a scramble around, if people are not willing to come to the defense of an Assange or an Ed Snowden or Glenn Greenwald, then we think, Oh, because theyre not really real reporters, or theyre not really real journalists. And theres a kind of essentialism that we seek. But as youre saying, this is information that the public has a right to know, and journalists have won prizes for it. So I guess Id like to see media themselves coming out stronger in defense of journalism, and particular journalists, particularly when theyre under fire like this.

Rainey Reitman: We need to ensure that as the news evolves, our thinking about what is protected by the First Amendment, and by free speech laws internationally, also evolves.

RR: And theres no question that Glenn Greenwald is the epitome of a journalist. I mean, hes a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. He has been at this for a very long time, and is himself a constitutional lawyer. So, for me, the Greenwald case is especially egregious, because there should be absolutely no question. And, in fact, the Brazilian supreme court, prior to this, had even upheld and preemptively stated that his relationship with the source was protected under Brazilian constitutional law.

I understand that there are people who want to distance themselves from Julian Assange, who arent happy with Edward Snowden, and the thing I keep coming back to is, this is about more than the people involved; its about the principles, and its about what kind of society we want to live in.

And journalism has become digital, right? We are living in a society that most of us are getting our news online or through various online media. And so we need to ensure that as the news evolves, our thinking about what is protected by the First Amendment, and by free speech laws internationally, also evolves.

JJ: Let me just ask you, finally: I know that EFF did a report a few years back. Let me just bring you back to cybercrime for a second. What did you have to say about how cybercrime laws could be shaped to comport with human rights, so that maybe they couldnt be this tool in prosecutors hands?

RR: Yeah, thank you for asking about that. The Electronic Frontier Foundation put out a detailed report where we compared cybercrime laws across the Americas, throughout North and South America, and how they were being used. At the time, we were particularly interested in cases where security researchers academics and others who are engaged in security research to help harden our systems and make the public more secure were facing prosecution or legal jeopardy as a result of cybercrime laws. And we found that in our analysis, many of the laws across the Americas around computer intrusion are extremely hazy and vague, using vague terms that dont adequately or clearly describe the activities theyre trying to punish, and also could carry pretty hefty penalties.

Protecting Security Researchers Rights in the Americas (EFF, 10/16/18)

And we see that even in the United States, where the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act has very steep penalties, and can be applied with a lot of prosecutorial discretion. So given that, we made a number of recommendations; a couple of them, to hone in on it, were around ensuring that malicious intent was baked in, so that it would be clear that this law is designed just to go after, not those who are acting in the public interest to uncover security vulnerabilities, but, rather, actually people who are trying to illegally get data, or do other malicious things through computer intrusion.

And we also talked about ensuring that the penalties were basically similar to the crimes that were being committed. One of the concerns is that if somebody is engaged in an act that is illegal, if theyre doing it with a computer, that doesnt mean that they should get 10 times as much time in prison as if they had done it not using a computer. And we need to make sure that just adding through a computer doesnt wildly change the penalties associated with a crime.

I will say that the report we did was analyzing the use of these cybercrime laws especially around security researchers. And, again, now that we can see that these laws can be turned against journalists, that is a really worrisome trend, and especially dangerous considering how vague these laws are, and what powerful penalties theyre often associated with.

JJ: Weve been speaking with Rainey Reitman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. You can find their work online at EFF.org. Rainey Reitman, thank you so much for joining us today on CounterSpin.

RR: Thank you so much for having me.

View original post here:
'These Are New Tactics Being Employed to Silence Journalism' - FAIR

Take up the fight for international socialism! Join the IYSSE! By the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (Australia) 5 February 2020

The following statement will be distributed by the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) to thousands of students at orientation events at campuses across Australia and New Zealand.

As campuses open across Australia and New Zealand, students and young people are confronted with two choices: capitalist barbarism or international socialism.

The new decade of the 2020s has been ushered in amid a profound crisis of the capitalist system, with unprecedented social inequality, sweeping attacks on democratic rights and the threat of nuclear war and environmental catastrophe.

These conditions have provoked mass struggles involving millions of workers and youth in Lebanon, Iraq, Bolivia, Chile, India, Algeria, Sudan, Hong Kong and France. There have been mass strikes by autoworkers, teachers and healthcare workers in Mexico, the US, New Zealand, South Korea and the Netherlands.

The scope of the vast and widening gulf between rich and poor that is driving these struggles is unprecedented. The capitalist profit system has led to the accumulation of wealth by an increasingly tiny, wealthy elite at the expense of the living standards of billions of people.

In its annual report on inequality, Oxfam revealed at the beginning of 2020 that the worlds 2,153 billionaires now control more wealth than the 4.6 billion poorest people. Meanwhile, the worlds top 1 percent collectively has twice as much wealth as 6.9 billion people, nearly the entire worlds population.

This staggering level of inequality and social polarisation is accompanied by the drive to war, as the capitalist classes of different countries seek domination over each other for resources, spheres of influence and markets.

The criminal act of US President Donald Trumps administration in assassinating Iranian General Qassim Soleimani threatened to propel the world into a devastating conflict involving not just the US and Iran, but nuclear-armed Russia and China as well.

An 18-year-old in 2020 has lived their entire lives with US imperialism at war in the Middle East. The illegal wars over resources and influence have intensified and expanded under both Republican and Democratic administrations. These conflicts are metastasising into a broader war, with the US ruling elite seeking to arrest its historic decline as the global hegemon by targeting Russia and China, which it perceives as its greatest rivals.

In Australia, every establishment partyLabor, Liberal-National coalition and Greens alikehas supported the US war drive and the associated attacks on free speech. War abroad is always accompanied by the war against the conditions and democratic rights of the working class at home.

For that reason, successive Australian governments have supported the US-led persecution of journalist and founder of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who is languishing in the maximum-security Belmarsh prison in the UK and faces a hearing this month to sanction his extradition to the US. If Assange is rendered to the US, he faces a life sentence of up to 175 years on trumped-up espionage and conspiracy charges. He has been hunted by the most powerful countries in the world for nine years for his role in publishing the leaks made by courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who has been reimprisoned in the US for refusing to testify against Assange.

The treatment of Assange and Manning is a warning to all workers and youth. Under conditions where the US and its allies are preparing ever greater war crimes, they are seeking to set a precedent: This is how they will treat anyone who exposes the truth about imperialist wars and intrigues around the world. The 2019 AFP raids on Murdoch journalist Anika Smethurst and the ABC offices testifies to the assault on freedom of speech in Australia.

The vicious treatment of Chinese students and nationals by the political and media establishments, who have vilified them as agents of foreign influence of the Chinese Communist Party, has set in motion a xenophobic campaign to sow nationalism and prepare the ideological conditions for war.

A microcosm of capitalist decay is the bushfires that have swept across the entire Australian continent in the last few months. Thirty-three people have been killed, over 2,500 homes have been destroyed, an estimated 12 million hectares of land has been affected and over a billion animals have perished in the worst fire crisis in the countrys recorded history. This has been decades in the making.

The fires have exposed the criminal indifference with which the Australian ruling elite regards the lives of ordinary people. Governments, Labor-Green and Liberal-National coalition alike, have under-resourced emergency services, refused to carry out much needed infrastructure projects like the burial of hundreds of kilometres of powerlines and have refused to act to mitigate bushfires or take any action on climate change.

The Greens, supported by the fake left parties, provide no way forward. The Greens and their supporters like Socialist Alternative promote the illusion that the financial and corporate elite can be pressured to carry out the vast changes necessary to avoid climate catastrophe. It is glaringly clear from the experience of the international climate change rallies last year that no amount of pressure will override the profit interests of capitalist corporations which lead to the destruction and degradation of the planet.

One hundred major corporations generate 71 percent of the worlds emissions and reap vast profits from doing so. They must be expropriated out of private hands. If the wealth of the 2,000 richest people in the world were expropriated for the needs of society as a whole, billions would be available for health, education, housing and jobs for millions of people.

Whether it is climate change or other weather-related disasters or epidemics such as the coronavirus, capitalism and its division of the planet into competing nation states is incapable of responding to the crises of its own making. Scientific and medical breakthroughs and discoveries are kept secret from other nations so they can be patented and made profitable.

There is a growing hostility to capitalism among millions of young people and a turn to socialism, but hostility is not enough. The fight against capitalist barbarism must be armed with an historically-grounded analysis to fight for socialism.

As the youth and student movement of the world Trotskyist movementthe International Committee of the Fourth International and the Socialist Equality Parties around the worldthe IYSSE fights for genuine socialism. The IYSSE is based on the scientific perspective first elaborated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels over 150 years ago, fought for by the leaders of the 1917 Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, and defended through the implacable struggle, led by Trotsky and the Fourth International, against the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Any attempt to rehabilitate the parties of the ruling class is doomed to fail. Nationalist, capitalist politicians like Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, despite their occasional anti-capitalist rhetoric, oppose a socialist solution to the crisis facing mankind.

Pseudo-left organisations, such as Socialist Alternative in Australia, who prop up the thoroughly corporatised trade unions, support imperialist war and promote illusions in dead-end protest and pressure politics. Their orientation is not to the international working class and socialism, but focused on promoting identity politics divisions over race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. They seek to prevent the building of a united movement of the working class of all backgrounds against capitalism.

Genuine socialism is based on the principles of social equality, internationalism, anti-imperialism and the interests of the working class, the vast majority of the population.

Genuine socialism is revolutionary. The capitalist system cannot be reformed. If workers and youth are to be successful in overthrowing the capitalist system and replacing it with an egalitarian world, free from imperialist war and poverty, they must build a Marxist revolutionary party grounded in the lessons of history.

The IYSSE is fighting to turn students and young people to the building of such an independent political movement of the working class, based on a revolutionary socialist program.

Join the fight to help build this movement today! Sign up as a member of the International Youth and Students for Social Equality! Help build the IYSSE where it exists and form new chapters at your school, university, TAFE and workplace!

Take up the fight for international revolutionary socialism!

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

Visit link:
Take up the fight for international socialism! Join the IYSSE! - World Socialist Web Site

President Trump meets military leaders during an unannounced visit to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq on December 26, 2018. (Jonathan Ernst / Reuters)

EDITORS NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

The expression self-licking ice cream cone was first used in 1992 to describe a hidebound bureaucracy at NASA. Yet, as an image, its even more apt for Americas military-industrial complex, an institution far vaster than NASA and thoroughly dedicated to working for its own perpetuation and little else.Ad Policy

Thinking about that led me to another phrase based on Americas seemingly endless string of victory-less wars: the self-defeating military. The United States, after all, hasnt won a major conflict since World War II, when it was aided by a grand alliance that included Soviet dictator Josef Stalins godless communists. And yet heres the wonder of it all: Despite such a woeful 75-year military record, including both the Korean and Vietnam wars of the last century and the never-ending war on terror of this one, the Pentagons coffers are overflowing with taxpayer dollars. What gives?

Americans profess to love their troops, but what are they getting in return for all that affection (and money)? Very little, it seems. And that shouldnt surprise anyone whos been paying the slightest attention, since the present military establishment has been designed less to protect this country than to protect itself, its privileges, and its power. That rarely discussed reality has, in turn, contributed to practices and mindsets that make it a force truly effective at only one thing: defeating any conceivable enemy in Washington as it continues to win massive budgets and the cultural authority to match. That it loses most everywhere else is, it seems, just part of the bargain.

The list of recent debacles should be as obvious as it is alarming: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen (and points around and in between). And even if its a reality rarely focused on in the mainstream media, none of this has been a secret to the senior officers who run that military. Look at the Pentagon Papers from the Vietnam War era or the Afghanistan Papers recently revealed by The Washington Post. In both cases, prominent US military leaders admitted to fundamental flaws in their war-making practices, including the lack of a coherent strategy, a thorough misunderstanding of the nature and skills of their enemies, and the total absence of any real progress in achieving victory, no matter the cost.

Of course, such honest appraisals of this countrys actual war-making prowess were made in secret, while military spokespeople and American commanders laid down a public smokescreen to hide the worst aspects of those wars from the American people. As they talked grimly (and secretly) among themselves about losing, they spoke enthusiastically (and openly) to Congress and the public about winning. In case you hadnt noticed, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, that military was, year after endless year, making progress and turning corners. Such happy talk (a mixture of lies and self-deception) may have served to keep the money flowing and weapons sales booming, but it also kept the body bags coming in (and civilians dying in distant lands)and for nothing, or at least nothing by any reasonable definition of national security.

Curiously, despite the obvious disparity between the militarys lies and reality, the American people, or at least their representatives in Congress, have largely bought those lies in bulk and at astronomical prices. Yet this countrys refusal to face the facts of defeat has only ensured ever more disastrous military interventions. The result: a self-defeating military, engorged with money, lurching toward yet more defeats even as it looks over its shoulder at an increasingly falsified past.

Long ago, New York Yankee catcher and later manager Yogi Berra summed up what was to come this way: The future aint what it used to be. And it wasnt. We used to dream, for example, of flying cars, personal jetpacks, liberating robots, and oodles of leisure time. We even dreamed of mind-bending trips to Jupiter, as in Stanley Kubricks epic film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like so much else we imagined, those dreams havent exactly panned out.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Yet heres an exception to Berras wisdom: Strangely enough, for the US military, the future is predictably just what it used to be. After all, the latest futuristic vision of Americas military leaders ishold onto your Kevlar helmetsa new cold war with its former communist rivals Russia and China. And lets add in one other aspect of that militarys future vision: Wars, as they see it, are going to be fought and settled with modernized (and ever more expensive) versions of the same old weapons systems that carried us through much of the mid-twentieth century: ever more pricey aircraft carriers, tanks, and top of the line jet fighters and bombers withhey!maybe a few thoroughly destabilizing tactical nukes thrown in, along with plenty of updated missiles carried by planes of an ever more stealthy and far more expensive variety. Think: the F-35 fighter, the most expensive weapons system in history (so far) and the B-21 bomber.

For such a future, of course, todays military hardly needs to change at all, or so our generals and admirals argue. For example, yet more ships will, of course, be needed. The Navy high command is already clamoring for 355 of them, while complaining that the record-setting $738 billion Pentagon budget for 2020 is too tight to support such a fleet.

Not to be outdone when it comes to complaints about tight budgets, the Air Force is arguing vociferously that it needs yet more billions to build a fleet of planes that can wage two major wars at once. Meanwhile, the Army is typically lobbying for a new armored personnel carrier (to replace the M2 Bradley) thats so esoteric insiders joke it will have to be made of unobtainium.

In short, no matter how much money the Trump administration and Congress throw at the Pentagon, its a guarantee that the military high command will only complain that more is needed, including for nuclear weapons to the tune of possibly $1.7 trillion over 30 years. But doubling down on more of the same, after a record 75 years of non-victories (not to speak of outright losses), is more than stubbornness, more than grift. Its obdurate stupidity.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

Why, then, does it persist? The answer would have to be because this country doesnt hold its failing military leaders accountable. Instead, it applauds them and promotes them, rewarding them when they retire with six-figure pensions, often augmented by cushy jobs with major defense contractors. Given such a system, why should Americas generals and admirals speak truth to power? They are power and theyll keep harsh and unflattering truths to themselves, thank you very much, unless theyre leaked by heroes like Daniel Ellsberg during the Vietnam War and Chelsea Manning during the Iraq War, or pried from them via a lawsuit like the one by The Washington Post that recently led to those Afghanistan Papers.

My Polish mother-in-law taught me a phrase that translates as, Dont say nothin to nobody. When it comes to Americas wars and their true progress and prospects, consider that the official dictum of Pentagon spokespeople. Yet even as Americas wars sink into Vietnam-style quagmires, the money keeps flowing, especially to high-cost weapons programs.

Consider my old service, the Air Force. As one defense news site put it, Congressional appropriators gave the Air Force [and Lockheed Martin] a holiday gift in the 2019 spending agreement$1.87 billion for 20 additional F-35s and associated spare parts. The new total just for 2020 is 98 aircraft62 F-35As, 16 F-35Bs, and 20 F-35Csat the whopping cost of $9.3 billion, crowning the F-35 as the biggest Pentagon procurement program ever. And thats not all. The Air Force (and Northrop Grumman) got another gift as well: $3 billion more to be put into its new, redundant, B-21 stealth bomber. Even much-beleaguered Boeing, responsible for the disastrous 737 MAX program, got a gift: nearly a billion dollars for the revamped F-15EX fighter, a much-modified version of a plane that first flew in the early 1970s. Yet, despite those gifts, Air Force officials continue to claim with straight faces that the service is getting the short straw in todays budgetary battles in the Pentagon.

What does this all mean? One obvious answer would be: The only truly winning battles for the Pentagon are the ones for our taxpayer dollars.

I cant claim that I ever traveled in the circles of generals and admirals, though I met a few during my military career. Still, no one can question that our commanders are dedicated. The only question is: dedication to what exactlyto the Constitution and the American people or to their own service branch, with an eye toward a comfortable and profitable retirement? Certainly, loyalty to service (and the conformity that goes with it), rather than out-of-the-box thinking in those endlessly losing wars, helped most of them win promotion to flag rank.

Perhaps this is one reason why, back in July 2017, the militarys current commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, reportedly railed at his top national security people in a windowless Pentagon room known as the Tank. He called themincluding then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford Jr.a bunch of dopes and babies. As the president put it, Americas senior military leaders dont win anymore and, as he made clear, nothing is worse than being a loser. He added, I want to win. We dont win any wars anymore We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and were not winning anymore. (And, please note, that hasnt changed a whit in the year and a half since that moment.)

Sure, Trump threw a typical tantrum, but his comments about losing at a strikingly high cost were (and remain) absolutely on the mark, not that he had any idea how to turn Americas losing wars and their losing commanders into winners. In many ways, his strategy has proven remarkably like those of the two previous presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Send more troops to the Middle East. Drone and bomb ever more, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq but even in places like Somalia and Libya. Prolong our commitment to loser wars like the Afghan one, even while talking ceaselessly about ending them and bringing the troops home. And continue to rebuild that same military, empowering those same dopes and babies, with yet more taxpayer dollars.

The results have been all-too predictable. Americas generals and admirals have so much money that they dont ever have to make truly tough choices. They hardly have to think. The Air Force, for example, just keeps planning for and purchasing more ultra-expensive stealth fighters and bombers to fight a future Cold War that we allegedly won 30 years ago. Meanwhile, actual future national security threats like climate-related catastrophes or pandemics go largely unaddressed. Who cares about them when this country will clearly have the most stealth fighters and bombers in the world?

For the Pentagon, the future is the past and the past, the future. Why should military leaders have to think when the president and Congress keep rewarding them for lies and failures of every sort?

Get unlimited digital access to the best independent news and analysis.

Trump believes America doesnt win anymore because were not ruthless enough. Take the oil, dammit! The real reason: because Americas wars are unwinnable from the git-go (something the last 18 years should have proved in no uncertain way) andirony of all ironiescompletely unnecessary from the standpoint of true national defense. There is no way for the US military to win hearts and minds across the Greater Middle East and Africa with salvos of Hellfire missiles. In fact, theres only one way to win such wars: end them. And theres only one way to keep winning: by avoiding future ones.

With a system that couldnt work better (in Washington), Americas military refuses to admit this. Instead, our generals just keep saluting smartly while lying in public (the details of which well find out about only when the next set of papers is released someday). In the meantime, when it comes to demanding and getting tax dollars, they couldnt be more skilled. In that sense, and that alone, they are the ultimate winners.

Dopes and babies, Mister President? No, just men who are genuinely skilled in the art of the deal. Small wonder Americas leader is upset. For when it comes to the military-industrial complex and its power and prerogatives, even Trump has met his match. Hes been out-conned. And if the rest of us remain silent on the subject, then so have we.

More:
Trump Has Been Out-Conned by the Pentagon - The Nation

It was a full-circle moment when Herman Bell attended the launch of the 2020 edition of the Certain Days calendar and shared how he conceived the project while he was incarcerated, urging friends to buy a copy by telling them: Dont be a square!

The former Black Panthers archaically hip cajoling denoted his 44 years behind bars. Given a 25-years-to-life sentence in 1971 for killing two policemen, Bell was granted parole and released in 2018, after decades of grassroots organizing and critical reforms, which the calendar continues to support by raising funds for projects like RAPP (Release Aging People from Prison).

Bell had the idea for a collaboration between political prisoners and their supporters in 2000 and started the calendar with two other men held in New York maximum-security prisons and some Canadian students who visited them. Robert Seth Hayes was a former Panther who got 25 years to life in 1971 for the death of a transit officer, and attempted murder of police who stormed his apartment. He died in December 2019, at home, after being paroled just the year before. David Gilbert, sentenced to 75 years to life after a 1981 Brinks truck robbery with the Black Liberation Army, remains in prison and is still part of the project.

The calendar arose from connections people made across prison walls and borders, Sara Falconer, a Canadian collective member since 2003, told The Indypendent. Its amazing to see what were able to accomplish across all of these different barriers.

image: Mary Tremonte.

Each new edition of the calendar features 12 original artworks and essays related to a theme this year it is Knitting Together the Struggles and marks key dates such as the Trans Prisoner Day of Action, radical history like the Attica Prison Rebellion, or the births and deaths of revolutionaries.

The calendar, very particularly, is meant to be on your wall every day reminding you of things that you might not otherwise think about, and names and stories of political prisoners that you may not even know existed, said Falconer.

I always look at it as a bit of a Trojan Horse, added Daniel McGowan, who first contributed to the calendar in 2008 while serving a seven-year sentence for charges for his role in a series of actions related to the Earth Liberation Front, and became a member of the collective after his release.

It is really important to know ones history, especially for new people, who tend to feel by themselves, McGowan told The Indypendent.

When he hung the calendar in his cell he says the events he read about in it helped him understand, you are part of something that extends deeper into the past and while your experience here feels very intense to you, it is part of a broader tapestry.

As he used the calendar to keep track of filing deadlines, the art improved his spirits.

People say it is important to send beautiful things to prison, McGowan said. It does make a difference to wake up to that.

While there are other radical fundraising calendars packed with art and information, like the Slingshot Organizer, this project features lots of contributions from people who are incarcerated.

We send out a call-out early in the year so prisoners have time to see what our theme is going to be and think about what inspires them, said Falconer. Were getting pieces from amazing prison artists, despite the fact they have limited access to materials and that its hard to get the actual pieces to us.

Other artists who have contributed include Molly Fair and Roger Peet, who are members of the Justseeds Artists Cooperative, and Brooklyn-based Sophia Dawson, whose vivid portraits aim to convey the true stories and experiences of oppressed people from political movements in ways that more broadly form, shade and convey the individual and collective injustices they face.

Editors also compile information about people who have died in prison and updates on newer cases, such as that of whistleblower Chelsea Manning, and Xinachtil, formerly known as Alvaro Luna Hernandez, a Chicano community organizer who was sentenced to 50 years for disarming a sheriff who attempted to shoot him.

Even as we see political prisoner populations shrink, McGowan noted, as long as we have resistance movements the state will incarcerate people from those movements.

Image: Molly Fair.

In the United States, the calendar is now distributed by Burning Books, based in Buffalo, New York, whose co-owner Leslie James Pickering is a former spokesperson for the Earth Liberation Front who challenged the FBIs attempt to surveil and intimidate him. It costs $15 and all proceeds benefit RAPP, Addameer (Arabic for conscience) Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, and related campaigns. Groups can buy copies in bulk for $10 each to raise funds and awareness, and prisoners can order them for $8.

We go to significant ends to make sure it gets in there, McGowan said. If a calendar is rejected by prison censors, he cuts out whatever they find offensive and sends it back. We are involved right now in re-sending one to a political guy at Angola in Louisiana for the third time.

In March the Certain Days collective plans to announce a new theme and call for submissions as it prepares to celebrate a milestone 20th anniversary.

To have something that is both symbolically inspiring and materially impacting makes me really proud, Falconer told The Indypendent, and excited to see whats next.

Certain Days 2020 Calendar: Knitting Together the StrugglesBy Certain DaysBurning Books, 2019

For more information visit CertainDays.org.

Please support independent media today! Now in its 20th year,The Indypendentis still standing but its not easy. Make arecurring or one-time donationorsubscribeto our monthly print edition and get every copy sent straight to your home.

Go here to read the rest:
'Certain Days': A Calendar That Breaks Down Walls Wherever It Hangs - The Indypendent

Canadas complicity in the persecution of Julian Assange By Roger Jordan 27 January 2020

The British government is conspiring with the Trump administration to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the US to face bogus Espionage Act charges and a possible 175-year prison term.

The Australian-born journalist and publisher has been the target of a 9-year legal vendetta, mounted by British and US authorities, and supported by the Canadian political establishment, because he sought to inform working people around the world of the crimes carried out by US imperialism and its allies.

The prosecution of Assange is a legal travesty. One, moreover, that is being used to gut basic democratic rights, including the rights of free speech and freedom of the press and the right to due process.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer has repeatedly denounced his treatment by British authoritiesincluding his seven years of effective detention in the Ecuadorean Embassy and his current incarceration, in virtual solitary confinement, at the hellish maximum security Bellmarsh Prisonas psychological torture. Scores of doctors have warned that this torture has placed Assanges life in grave danger.

The CIA has spied on Assanges interactions with his lawyers. Chelsea Manning, who handed over hundreds of thousands of secret US cables to WikiLeaks in 2010, has also been detained since last March because she refused to testify against Assange in a rigged US Grand Jury proceeding.

Assange has been subjected to this horrific treatment by some of the worlds most powerful governments for the crime of informing the public about the war crimes and diplomatic skullduggery of their governments. These include the massacre of civilians in Iraq by US troops, the mistreatment of prisoners of war in Afghanistan, and Washingtons bullying of governments around the world. Even leading bourgeois newspapers, like the New York Times, that have published scurrilous attacks on Assange have been forced to concede that his successful prosecution would represent a threat to journalists and the freedom of the press the world over.

The Canadian political establishment has maintained a deafening and complicit silence about the prosecution and persecution of Assange throughout the past nine years. This is true of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberals, but also of all the other parties that posture as progressive, from the New Democrats and Greens to the Bloc Quebecois, and the pseudo-left Quebec Solidaire.

The reason for this deafening silence is not hard to find. The Canadian capitalist elite, which is more reliant than ever on its military-strategic partnership with US imperialism to advance its own predatory interests on the global stage, fears the impact of WikiLeaks exposures. Like its British and American allies, the Canadian ruling elite is anxious that Assange be subjected to exemplary punishment so as to intimidate all those who seek to lay bare the crimes and machinations of the western imperialist powers.

Whilst the Trudeau government is not directly involved in Assanges prosecution, it has provided crucial political support for it. Last July, for example, the then Canadian Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, co-hosted a Global Media Freedom Conference in London along with British Foreign Secretary Jeremey Hunt, just weeks after Hunt had presided over the British governments illegal seizure of Assange from his refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Canada and the UK are working together to defend media freedom and improve the safety of journalists who report across the world, Freelands office declared in a truly Orwellian statement. Needless to say, neither Freeland nor Hunt mentioned the fate of Assange, an award-winning journalist and publisher, at the meeting.

The refusal of any section of Canadas political establishment to criticize the persecution of Assange, let alone mobilize popular opposition to it, is a damning exposure of their oft-repeated claims to stand for human rights and democracy on the world stage. The reality is Ottawa, like Washington, cynically and hypocritically invokes human rights as a cover for the rapacious pursuit of their imperialist interests. The North American imperialist powers denounce both real and fabricated violations of human rights committed by governments they view as obstacles to their interests, while covering up and excusing state repression, torture, and war crimes carried out by their client regimes, allies, and, last but not least, their own military and security intelligence apparatuses.

Since 1999, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have participated in US-led wars and regime change military interventions in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Haiti, Libya, Syria and Iraq that have left entire societies in ruins. Trudeaus Liberals have further integrated Canada into US military-strategic offensives around the world. This includes participating in Washingtons war preparations against nuclear-armed Russia and China, but also its regime-change intrigues in Venezuela.

Canadas ruling elite has also moved to criminalize dissent and workers struggles at home and to build up the repressive powers of the state with the aim of suppressing popular opposition to austerity, social inequality, and war. Canada is a key partner in the global US National Security Agency-led Five Eyes spying network. Under the phony pretext of the war on terror, successive governments have dramatically expanded the powers of the intelligence services. Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) has been empowered to break virtually any law in disrupting activities deemed to pose a threat to public security or Canadas territorial integrity.

The work of whistleblowers like Assange and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden has been invaluable in bringing to light some of the crimes Canadian imperialism has committed as it pursues aggression abroad and attacks democratic rights at home. It was a US State Department memo released by WikiLeaks that informed the Canadian population that while the Liberal government of Jean Chretien publicly posed as an opponent of the George W. Bush-ordered 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was reassuring Washington behind the scenes that it would provide discreet support for the illegal US war.

Following the meeting, political director Jim Wright emphasized that, despite public statements that the Canadian assets in the Straits of Hormuz will remain in the region exclusively to support Enduring Freedom, noted the memo, which described a meeting between top US and Canadian foreign ministry officials on March 17, 2003. They will also be available to provide escort services in the Straits and will otherwise be discreetly useful to the military effort. The two ships in the Straits now are being augmented by two more en route, and there are patrol and supply aircraft in the U.A.E. [United Arab Emirates] which are also prepared to 'be useful.

Snowdens disclosures in 2013 revealed that the Canadian Security Establishment (CSE), Canadas signal intelligence agency, acts as a veritable arm of the NSA. Documents leaked by Snowden showed that the CSE helps develop NSA spying operations and techniques, provides information on countries that US citizens have difficulty accessing, and conducts economic spying for Canadian corporations around the world.

The Canadian ruling elite was outraged by these exposures. In 2013, Conservative Foreign Minister John Baird declared that Snowden should hand himself over to the US authorities, effectively condemning him to a death sentence. Three years later, Michael Doucetthe governments top watchdog for the countrys intelligence agenciesblurted out the true feelings of the ruling elite towards whistleblowers like Snowden and Assange. Asked his opinion on how Snowden would have been treated had he been an employee of CSIS, the countrys premier domestic spy agency, Doucet responded, If Edward Snowden had worked for CSIS and did what he did, he should be shot. (See: Canadas top spy watchdog says Edward Snowden should be shot)

Underscoring the fact that Doucets remark reflected broader sentiments in ruling circles, the Trudeau government took no action against him for this outrageous comment.

The complicit silence of Canadas political elite on Assanges torture, persecution, and imminent extradition underscores that his freedom can be won only through the mobilization of the working class, the basic constituency for the defence of democratic rights around the world.

Workers and young people who want to oppose Canadian imperialist aggression and war overseas and attacks on democratic rights at home should join the global struggle for the freedom of Assange and Manning, which has already won important and growing support in Britain, Australia, France, South Asia, and countries around the world. The struggle to defend these two courageous whistleblowers must be made the spearhead of the fight to oppose the imperialist powers drive to war and the gutting of democratic rights.

The Socialist Equality Party (Canada) is holding a public meeting in Montreal on Sunday, February 2 to initiate steps to develop a cross-Canada campaign to win Assanges freedom, defend democratic rights, and oppose Canadian imperialism and war.

We strongly urge those living in western Quebec and eastern Ontario to make plans to attend. For details see below.

No to war and the assault on democratic rights: Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning must be defended!

Montreal

Sunday, February 2, at 1:30 PMCentre St-Pierre, Room 2011212 Rue Panet (near the Beaudry Mtro station, on the Green Line)

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

Read more:
Canada's complicity in the persecution of Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site