I had a similar revelation when my wife, a self-professed history buff, said she won't read My Struggle, because she will be put on the list somewhere. I initially found it amusing, but then I understood that even though she apparently does not seem to care much about privacy, she instinctively understands how weird things have become today. She does not want to address it, but she adjusts her behavior to fit the mold.
Bilekas post is the same. It attempts to present a neutral position. It recognizes current state and assumes that this is just how things are.
Personally, I find it chilling that an individual today is willing to effectively say the following:
1. Assange may be innocent, but it does not matter as the real verdict was already rendered. This is just a formality.
2. His pre-punishment punishment is not as bad as it could have been somewhere else.
3. Assange knew what he was getting into, therefore he does not have basic human rights ( variation of: you don't kick the bear argument )
> 1. Assange may be innocent, but it does not matter as the real verdict was already rendered. This is just a formality. 2. His pre-punishment punishment is not as bad as it could have been somewhere else. 3. Assange knew what he was getting into, therefore he does not have basic human rights ( variation of: you don't kick the bear argument )
I get what you mean and yes, you have a point. I guess I'm just surprised that people are getting annoyed this is happening now when it was always going to happen.
It's like constantly reminding someone that the boiling water will burn your hand, the boiling water will burn your hand, the boiling water will burn your hand. Then people being surprised and outraged that the water burnt your hand.
This outrage just seems almost topical. It should have been made earlier, it wasn't so this is the result.
It's easy to say this was going to happen. (Especially after it happened.) But it's not a natural law like boiling water burning one's hand. Proteins are always going to be damaged by heat. But here we observe due process being violated. It's not a natural law that due process is going to be violated. Violations depend on attitude, checks and incentives. As a society, we can shape those to a large degree!
We could have complained earlier, in other instances. You can say we should have been more alert. There were victims we ignored. But that does not invalidate our complaints now!
> A sense of 'NIMBY' overcomes me reading the pitty for Assange.
I don't get what you are saying. It sounds like we shouldn't complain about it happening here because it's happening in other places.
I count myself as part of a wider society of which the UK is a part. If we want to criticize other societies, like Russia for example, we better damn well make sure we don't run the same shit-shows of legal persecutions. I also have more influence over processes in my society, so it is logical to spend my efforts here. Lastly, I care more about due process in my society just out of self-preservation.
Your relativism is useless in deciding where to spend effort. If you don't care, sure, you don't have to. But don't piss on people that advocate for our liberties.
> given that we all knew this was going to happen, what did we say before ? — Nothing
We? You're projecting your own callous ignorance. Just because you decided not to listen doesn't mean nobody spoke up. I ask you to shut up rather than to invalidate the effort of those who risk their livelihoods exposing government malfeasance. We should defend them, not tell them they had it coming!
My personal expectations were that this could not happen in UK... Honestly it feels more what I expect to happen in (nowaday's) Turkey, China or Russia.
We should demand our enemies be treated without cruelty. But out of fear we renounce our friends. The old recipe works well. Just keep a few lists of persona non grata.
I had a similar revelation when my wife, a self-professed history buff, said she won't read My Struggle, because she will be put on the list somewhere. I initially found it amusing, but then I understood that even though she apparently does not seem to care much about privacy, she instinctively understands how weird things have become today. She does not want to address it, but she adjusts her behavior to fit the mold.
Bilekas post is the same. It attempts to present a neutral position. It recognizes current state and assumes that this is just how things are.
Personally, I find it chilling that an individual today is willing to effectively say the following:
1. Assange may be innocent, but it does not matter as the real verdict was already rendered. This is just a formality. 2. His pre-punishment punishment is not as bad as it could have been somewhere else. 3. Assange knew what he was getting into, therefore he does not have basic human rights ( variation of: you don't kick the bear argument )