Two of Australia’s most prominent international figures are living out their days in jail.
The first is convicted paedophile George Pell, who on Monday received a visit from former prime minister Tony Abbott.
Abbott was caught by Seven News’ cameras leaving the Melbourne Assessment Prison where Pell is being held. He told reporters he was “simply visiting a friend”.
It wouldn’t be the first time Abbott has extended his support to Australia’s most senior Catholic.
When asked about the Victorian parliamentary inquiry’s 2013 finding that Pell had failed to respond appropriately to criminal child abuse claims, the then-prime minister said Pell was “in my judgement, a fine human being and a great churchman”. Abbott reportedly phoned Pell in February this year after the Cardinal’s guilty verdict was handed down.
Meanwhile, the government continues to ignore the legal battle of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who doctors fear could die inside the London prison where he is currently being held.
Assange is fighting the US’ attempts to extradite him over charges relating to his work in 2010 exposing classified US bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, which could see him serving out a 175-year sentence.
Over 60 doctors from eight countries have signed an open letter urging that the 48-year-old be transferred to a hospital amid reports that he appears to be “exhibiting the symptoms of a torture victim”.
WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson is in Australia lobbying support for Assange, and will speak at the National Press Club today.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
Some Australian politicians have emerged from the fray to campaign for Assange’s return to Australia. Labor backbencher Julian Hill told The Guardian in October that Australia “must be vigorously consistent in opposing extradition to countries where he might face the death penalty”. Barnaby Joyce and former foreign minister Bob Carr have also expressed similar concerns over Assange’s fate.
Leave a comment
Justine, this article is a total non-sequitur.
Whether or not it’s tasteful for a former PM to visit a convicted pedophile (I’d agree that it isn’t), Mr Abbott has declared his visit one of personal friendship, which is legal and a fundamental human right not unreasonably denied any citizen.
Mr Assange has some half-hearted eleventh-hour supporters in Australian politics, but lacks personal friends among senior politicians, so what’s the point of the article? Are you telling readers that he should have made those friends before making so many international enemies, or is there some democratic process by which we can require politicians to select the friends the electorate nominates?
Simple questions. Is he Australian? Is he legally incarcerated? If not what should a proper government do?
FM, before we go further, out of respect for the broader discussion I must point out that your questions do not relate to the article above, so you are defending a non-sequitur with another non-sequitur, which makes it irrelevant to this discussion.
But as you’ll likely ask your questions of me again anyway, for your convenience only, and with no desire to debate the matter under this article: as you know Mr Assange is an Australian imprisoned in a foreign jurisdiction pending extradition proceedings for alleged espionage. Nobody has yet mounted a successful challenge against the due processes here; the processes have been very well ventilated so far by modern standards; and Mr Assange has had very eminent pro bono legal counsel as well as the offer of Australian consular assistance.
There’s an argument that the extradition process is needlessly cruel and I agree that it may well be. I’ve seen nobody successfully argue that the cruelty is unusual though. So any cruelty argument seems to apply to all extradition proceedings relating to espionage — or to none. That doesn’t invalidate the individual concern but does suggest spending more effort supporting (say) Amnesty International than just Mr Assange.
Regarding the relevance of espionage allegations, the only rebuttal I’ve seen is of any force is a bare assertion that Mr Assange ‘is’ a journalist and therefore is ‘not’ a spy.
But it’s impossible to overlook two glaring holes here:
1. Nobody has explained clearly and rationally what distinguishes journalism from the malicious and politically-motivated publishing of state secrets. (I believe there is an important and reasonable distinction, but nobody making the argument has yet to explain what it is accepted to be or what they think it should be. I keep asking, and you’ve already ignored one opportunity to respond, as have all Crikey’s journalists I’ve read, and all the readers supporting Crikey’s periodic pot-lid banging.)
2. Acting as a journalist does not mean acting only as a journalist. Either journalistic processes should be subject to legal scrutiny or they should not. Mr. Assange does not come with an impeccable ethical record. His methods have also been subject to eminent ethical and journalistic criticism prior to the Swedish rape allegations. So there may be a case to answer that his actions cannot be wholly defended under the usual and reasonable understanding of journalistic privilege. For example, it could be reaosnably argued that Mr Assange is a publisher and a second-hand source, but not himself a journalist.
That doesn’t mean I think Mr Assange is guilty; it means I recognise that he may have a case to answer under due process, and I note that due process has never mattered to him while ever he can evade public accountability — so it’s not like he himself respects any standards of ethics beyond what he himself defines them to be.
I understand why his supporters want some of what he published to be seen as journalism: I too recognise the potential journalistic benefits of Wikileaks. They have yet to explain where the line should be drawn though and consequently I don’t think their arguments to date for avoiding due process entirely have been fair or coherent.
I hope that helps explain things better. As I mentioned I won’t debate these matters with you here, but would be happy to in future under an appropriately relevant article.
Interesting thoughts Ruv. The main problem with the Assange cases to me is the complete mockery of due process by Sweden, UK and USA. Then there’s the precedent, already set but strengthened, if he’s extradited to the US. He’s never been to the US but received information about the US from a US citizen in an act he didn’t invoke.
Maybe there’s legal niceties that escape me but at least our government could stand up just a bit for this citizen.
I’d agree that there can easily have been agendas here, M.E.S, but I’m not convinced that processes have been discarded, except to the extent that Mr Assange himself has serially tried to evade them.
If someone can show me critical procedures from a particular jurisdiction that were varied for any reason other than that it’s a cross-jurisdictional matter with a known flight risk doing his best to avoid accountability at every turn, I’d love to hear about it. (However, I normally hear how people think things should work on a legal matter in the same jurisdiction with no real flight risk, and that’s not very relevant.)
The issue regarding an off-shore actor soliciting secrets being espionage rather than journalism may be easy to argue, though. Here’s how it might go…
It could be argued that legitimate journalists do not publish data wholesale (for ethical reasons I’ll cover in a moment.) Rather they select data or information relevant to a public interest matter, research it and publish the story and supporting evidence.
It might be argued that the act of publishing wholesale data against which there’s no obvious public interest story (here I’m not talking about the ‘Collateral Murder’ material, say, but the scads of secret diplomatic cables published just because Wikileaks possessed them) is vexatious, disruptive, serves no obvious public interest and hence can only be either negligent or malignant in intent.
And the reason it can be seen as vexatious, disruptive and malignant relates to the other intelligence held (or suspected to be held) by foreign and potentially unfriendly powers, against which these data can be joined — in much the same way that Facebook or Google can join disparate data to form accurate inferences about their subscribers.
It could be argued that Mr Assange not only knew such publication would be vexatious, inconvenient and harmful with no obvious public good attached; he solicited, encouraged, procured and facilitated the production of such information both in the design of Wikileaks and his engagement with then-Pvt Manning.
Which meets a pretty functional definition of espionage, yes?
So we could have a situation where some of the Wikileaks material is legitimate journalism (e.g. that published by the Guardian and NYT), while other is simply damaging intel of no public interest, solicited by a non-state actor known to have previously undertaken criminal enterprises for ideological reasons, and to be antipathic to the US. (And any malignance in such behaviour need not be mitigated by any cables Wikileaks didn’t publish.)
I’m not saying that case would hold, or would even be the one prosecuted. I’m just saying that Mr Assange’s unprofessional behaviour, serial indifference to best journalistic practice, his obvious egotism, deliberate evasion of international processes, long-term malignance toward one of the states he published about, and disregard for ethical advice offered in advance, have all done him no favours here.
If a large part of multiple US governments see him as a malignant, dangerous, indiscriminate, intelligence-gathering enemy, that may be because it’s precisely what he set out to be.
(And yes, he has also helped more scrupulous journalists hold US foreign policy to account too. I’m not discounting that.)
(And just importantly, I think that after all the smoke, dust and yelling, there ought to be an ethical data leaks repository, run in the public interest. And it ought to be secure and protected by journalistic privilege. I just don’t think it’s Mr Assange and his anarcho-techbro brainchild.)
Anyway, I don’t really want to debate the matter seriously under an article that wasn’t serious enough to be worth reading in the first place. But I’d be happy to come back and discuss again under the next article Crikey will doubtless publish — assuming it’s better conceived.
Your reaction and comments are rather confusing and suggest ultimately that you believe Assange to be a threat to a Deep State (in a world sense) that you support.
That you think there is nothing at all wrong in a former PM continuing a friendship with a convicted pedophile also speaks volumes !
Grevandi53 wrote: Your reaction and comments are rather confusing and suggest ultimately that you believe Assange to be a threat to a Deep State (in a world sense) that you support.
I don’t think you can hold both positions simultaneously, Grevandi. Surely the definition of confusing means that you can’t read between the lines of my post?
As for the rest — Deep State and so on — that’s a straw-man rebuttal piled onto a contradiction. It’s miles from what I said, and leagues from what I actually think.
But since you’ve gone there anyway… here’s what’s bugging me more than the question itself.
I totally get why many on the left like him. There are so few effective replies to militant authoritarianism at the moment that for people concerned about a potential Western slide into fascism, both Wikileaks and Mr Assange’s prolonged nose-thumbing at authoritarian Western power can seem enormously attractive. In particular, Australians making a big impact on the geopolitical stage are rare, and historically we like anti-authoritarian larrikins anyway. Although I don’t personally agree with it, the support for Mr Assange makes some political and cultural sense to me.
But what bothers me most is this: when challenged constructively, good ideas should not become incoherent. They usually get smarter, more incisive, more constructive.
Why then does the Assange support collapse into straw-man arguments, frothing ad-hominems and non-sequiturs when poked? Why is there nothing better than that? And why despite his tens of thousands of vocal supporters on the left, is nobody else on the left concerned by that behaviour?
I’m disturbed because absent a better explanation, it looks to me like the behaviour of religion.
“he solicited, encouraged, procured and facilitated the production of such information both in the design of Wikileaks and his engagement with then-Pvt Manning.”
Sounds like you have taken on the role of judge, jury and executioner there Ruv. I don’t think any of those claims are established.
And you were going so well.
Dogs Breakfast wrote: Sounds like you have taken on the role of judge, jury and executioner there Ruv. I don’t think any of those claims are established.
…after I repeatedly wrote:
Here’s how it might go…
It could be argued that…
It might be argued that…
And the reason it can be seen as…
So we could have a situation where…; and finally, just for emphasis:
I’m not saying that case would hold, or would even be the one prosecuted.
So just how many paragraphs, sentences and qualifying phrases did you have to ignore to come to that straw-man conclusion, DB?
Ruv, typical right wing bullshit, excuses after excuses for the differing reasons people do things, one was to expose war crimes and unethical government behaviour , the other was convicted of a heinous crime against children, I know who I`d prefer to visit in jail, one thing I`ve noticed about the red neck right is their single minded blindness to anything not in line with their ideology regardless of its merits or decency, I thank god every day that I`m not like these disgusting rejects from the human race and I wonder what they think when they comb their hair and see that reflection in the mirror.
Braddybear, hmm..
If at a barbecue someone thought uncooked chicken skewers had been badly handled and left in the sun too long, would you accuse them of being a vegan terrorist, breaking into poultry farms and putting videos on youtube? Or might you accept that a criticism of method is sometimes designed to improve a practice and improve human welfare?
I think that’s what you’ve done here. Rather than recognise that criticism can be used to improve thought and communications around legitimate concerns, you’ve rejected any criticism at all in favour of imputing straw-man motives, ad-hominem associations, and added a bunch of hate-ridden non-sequiturs for good measure.
Which makes me wonder: how do you detect when your ideas and reasoning can be improved? Or are they always conceived perfectly? And if so, could you please share by what magical revelations can self-satisfied rock-chuckers always know their ideas are right?
One can imagine the response of the Murdoch press and the shock jocks if Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard visited a convicted pedophile in jail. Or even visited Julian Assange, for that matter.
Or, if Tony Abbott had visited any other convicted pedophile.
Abbott is a former prime minister of Australia who is still politically active and who still draws a pension for his former role. His actions go beyond the purely personal: they have political implications. In this case, they imply one of two things. Either he is ok with someone being a pedophile if he is, at the same time, a senior church figure, or he does not accept rule of law. Either one is a seriously unacceptable position for him to take.
Do you mean if he believes he is innocent he “does not accept the rule of law”? Since when does the “rule of law” mean you have to actually believe someone is guilty if a court is found them guilty? I have always understood it to mean that the law is binding on everyone, including monarchs and politicians. You might be able to argue he “does not accept the rule of law” if he tried to break him out of gaol.
It also doesn’t seem logical to infer that a visitor who believes the prisoner is guilty condones the crime. I agree that it would demonstrate an unusual and improbable amount of compassion in the case in question. I think it’s more likely he believes he is innocent.
Well observed Graeski…
Abbott can’t have his cake & eat it to..
He can’t accept the pension & whatever other benefits he’s getting from the government & taxpayers, as well as you noted still being politically active, also expecting it to be acceptable to go visit a convicted pedophile..
If he was an everyday joe/josephine, it would go completely unnoticed ..
It doesn’t matter whether they’re friends or not, it’s not a good look & (along with the separation of powers), the religious ramifications/influences are at best problematic, as Abbott should realise that Pell’s appeal is still in the process of being heard & he needs to steer well clear of this…
Ahh!
So we have to make “friends” with politicians if we want get effective diplomatic and moral support.
That sounds like corruption to me.
The only people who are the friends of politicians in the material sense of the word “friends”, are those people who run companies or churches. The companies provide election campaign funds and the churches brain wash the masses in conservative dogma and get a tax-free ride for the privilege of doing so.
In my view people should leave Pell alone. He’s been found guilty and is doing his time. What more needs to be said? People in the main do not choose to be pedophiles, they are born that way. Children must be protected from them, but they do not deserve to be friendless, persecuted and isolated from human kindness. There, but for the grace of God go I.
Julian is an Australian citizen in deep shit. That evil empire, the USA, is after him for exposing their mendacity and evil doings which Australian politicians have bought into to suck up to their great and powerful friend.
Why are we still in Afghanistan. It’s costing us billions, its making more people enemies of Australia and its 9,000 km away?
Please explain.
Robert Garnett wrote: So we have to make “friends” with politicians if we want get effective diplomatic and moral support.
Robert, I’d strongly agree with you that in cases of criminal justice, having a politician as a friend should give one no privilege.
I have also already agreed that an ex-PM’s visit to a convicted sex-offender in prison is a very bad look.
However it does not follow that Mr Abbott’s visit has created special judicial privilege for Mr Pell, or was even designed to do so. (If you want to argue that it has, I’m open to whatever evidence you can supply.)
Regarding Mr Assange, my understanding is that Australia has repeatedly offered him regular consular support (e.g. see the DFAT statement [1], and that it has repeatedly been refused [e.g. 2, 3], apparently in favour of more recently telling the Australian government what to support to give and how. [4.]
If the government capitulated to special demands from a single citizen, that would be evidence of having friends in high places. Neither you nor I believe Mr Assange has made those friends in Australian politics, and so the outcome — of Australia offering ordinary consular assistance which an accused can either accept or reject — shouldn’t surprise us.
The part I don’t understand — and perhaps you can clarify for me — is why Mr Assange’s supporters think evading the due process of other jurisdictions in the cases of people they like is a good idea — and by what special mechanisms they want that pursued.
How is that supposed to work without having friends in high places?
Robert, it sounds to me that without supplying evidence, you have accused the Australian government of doing for Mr Pell exactly what many readers here want it to do for Mr Assange anyway.
And that’s exactly the risk with the non-sequitur argument underpinning Justine’s article above. It will falsely and baselessly lead sympathetic readers to exactly that belief without a skerrick of consistency or self-examination.
It’s rabble-rousing, and Crikey should do better.
I hope this may help.
“Simply visiting a friend”, or as it’s commonly known “The Prince Andrew defence”.
“Getting a visit from Tony Abbott in the Big House is crap!”
One would think that Assange has suffered more than enough for his alleged sins, none of which has been proven to be a ‘crime’. However, in the US, his facilitation of the embarrassment of US foreign policy and military operatives will almost certainly be a contrived crime of espionage. Sadly, because of the Muppet government’s capacity for outright cruelty and authoritarianism, Assange has no hope. He will be sacrificed in the altar of American self-interest and self-importance.
Allow grace to ‘flick-pass’Justine’s primary focus . . and instead highlight the inhumane official penalties dealt fellow Australian Julian Assange.
Like Witness K and others; Assange’s invisibility is a calculated action of Government (can’t bring self to add “Australian”) foreshadowing the brutal realities facing any Australian national should we offend political elites. Ipso facto . . you are on their own! In Assange’s case; possibly unto death?
We are no longer the Nation once were. The Nation I grew up within, proud to be a member of. A fair nation, a nation standing for values known and valued by all. Australians have not changed. The political class has . . and failed all. Like USA . . Australia also; increasingly seen unaccountable.
With respect to the Pell,Abbott matter I would suggest it may be more a case of birds of a feather flocking together.