 Chileans have rejected a proposed far-right constitution. What were the provisions in this text and what does this mean for the country? The High Court of Justice in London will hear what could be Julian Assange's final appeal against the extradition to the United States. What is its take for the persecuted journalist? This is the daily debrief. These are the stories for the day. And before we go any further, if you're watching this on YouTube, please hit that subscribe button. On December 17th, Chileans rejected a proposed far-right constitution in a plebiscite. This constitution, if adopted, would have been even more conservative than the current document that was framed during the rule of dictator Augusto Pinochet. An earlier, extremely progressive draft had also been rejected in a vote. To understand what this means for the country, we have with us Zoe Alexandra. Zoe, thank you so much for joining us. So, could you maybe first take us to what happened in the vote on the 17th of December and what have been the kind of responses to it? So, this Sunday, December 17th, the people of Chile were once again at the polls to vote on a potential new constitution for their country. This constitution was rejected with 55.7% of the vote. This is seen as a victory actually for progressive forces in the country, given the fact that this constitution was written by a group of far-right people who were elected in the constitutional body to rewrite this text. It would have included provisions against abortion, against same-sex marriage. And some say that it would have even gone further than the current constitution that was written during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, which in many senses sort of created the structure of the current neoliberal economic system in Chile, which privatizes several vital services for the people of the country. And so, this was definitely an interesting vote, especially given the fact that it came just over a year after the people of Chile voted on a different constitution, which actually would have been one of the most progressive constitutional documents in maybe the world, and definitely in the history of Chile. And it was voted, people voted against this constitution last year. This was seen as a major setback for progressive forces. And so, once again now, with these two constitutional documents rejected, President Gabriel Bordic has said that the current kind of constitutional process of potentially reading, writing, this document is closed for the rest of his term. As we remember, this was one of his key campaign promises on following, taking forward this demand from the streets. But he has said that this process, rather than bringing together the Chilean people in writing a document of unity and a document that would represent the people of Chile, it has been polarizing and caused a lot of strife in the country, and that quote, the priorities are different. The priorities are not rewriting this document, but are attending to the needs of the people of Chile, and that there is a debt now in politics to be able to attend to these needs outside of a constitutional process. So, with this rejection of the far right constitution, we see an end to this period of rewriting this document, reimagining this document, which again was written during the last military dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet. And the kind of reaction again to this, to what happened to the rejection of this constitution, with some are calling a victory, was again to affirm that this was important to reject, that it threatened to take away years of advances that marginalized communities in the country have fought for, that women have fought for, that they've won through decades of struggle. And so it was an important way to kind of put a stop to this, especially as we're seeing across, just across the Andes, Javier Millay taking office in Argentina, who has actually said that he would do exactly all of the things that this far right constitution would have, which is restrict abortion, restrict gay rights, and other such social victories that those two countries have seen. We saw that, again, leading last figures such as Daniel Holloway, the president of the Communist Party, Lautaro Carmona said that above all, it's not necessarily a victory, but it is a defeat of the far right in the country. We did see that with the victory of Gabriel Boric, he won against a past who again represented this far right current that praises the dictatorship that says that Pinochet was good, all of those things denies the crimes of the dictatorship. So again, this is sort of a pushback on those sorts of currents. But again, it doesn't advance the cause of the people who had been for years demanding a new constitution. Right, but could you also give us a bit of context in the sense of why was the proposal for a new constitution mooted in Chile? What were the kind of conditions that led to the demand rising? So as we covered on People's Dispatch, in 2019, in October, a huge uprising was sparked in Chile, a revolution, a revolt. There were so many different names to refer to this moment in Chilean history. It started with high school students who were evading subway fare, who were going into the subway stations and hopping over the turnstiles. These protests by high school students were met with mass repression, and it really sparked something in Chilean society. Thousands and thousands of people were out on the streets for months and months, and this repression provoked a response in the people to broaden their demands and to say it's not just about the the increase in transportation hikes, which of course was the first thing that provoked the protests of the high school students, but it's about so much more. It's about having access to education. It's about having access to health care. It's about having public pensions and so many other things that the people of Chile currently struggle with, a very unequal society. And so again, we saw these mass protests, a lot of riots that took place. There was very, very heavy repression by the Caramineros, which is the national police force in Chile, responding with brutal, brutal repression. Over 200 people lost their eyes due to the repression of the police forces. Dozens were killed in these protests, and it came at a time also when we saw a lot of uprisings across the continent against neoliberalism, for example in Ecuador, in Colombia at the same time as well. So really immortalize this moment of the continent rising up against neoliberalism, against this status quo in Latin America where inequality was the norm and that people had to suffer to have access to basic rights such as health care and education. So these protests really represented a general rejection of the policies that had been again, the status quo across the continent for several decades. And with it, it ushered in this demand for a new constitution, recognizing that many of this inequality and privatization of goods and services that should be public, all these other sort of things were actually kind of consecrated in this constitution that again as I mentioned before was written in 1980 under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. And so people, one of the main demands on the streets was not only against neoliberalism, but was for rewriting this constitution and calling for an open process in society to re-rate something that would actually reflect the demands and the desires and the aspirations of the people. This went to a referendum, a consultation. If people wanted to open this process, would it be a constitutional convention? Would it be a constitutional assembly? And it went forward with the constitutional convention. And then as we know, they spent a year rewriting this document, created something that was one of the most progressive constitutional texts that's been proposed in terms of projecting the environment, in terms of women's rights, immigrants' rights, many other such things. But again, this was rejected. The next version wherein far-rights and conservatives were voted in to write this text was also now, as we said, this Sunday rejected. So given this context of where this demand comes from for this new constitution, it's clear that with neither texts having gone forward, the demand remains in that the Chilean people of course are going to continue in the struggle demanding a new constitution because of just how deep this desire and this demand is, especially the symbolic nature of the fact that it was written during the dictatorship and all that, all of that, which it symbolizes. So I think that, of course, the Governor of Bordecher said this process will be opened up in his presidency again. However, the struggle is definitely, will definitely not be over for the Chilean people. And I think that in the coming period we'll see how this demand transforms, how they will use other means to get across these demands like access, like broadening access to higher education and healthcare, and other such things which they wanted the constitution to address. So an interesting sort of turn of events for Chile hit to the far right, but again no major and concrete advances for the left and for progressive forces. Thank you so much for joining us Zoe. A two judge bench of the UK's High Court of Justice will review the verdict of a single judge bench regarding the extradition of WikiLeaks founder and journalist Julian Assange. The single judge bench had earlier rejected Assange's appeal against extradition to the United States. If extradited, Assange faces charges under the notorious Espionage Act. The journalist is currently behind bars in Belmarsh prison without any charges. We go to Anish to understand the details of the case. Anish, thank you so much for joining us. It's been a long process of appeals of multiple trials and hearings. And the key question, of course, is regarding the freedom of Assange journalists who has been continuously targeted and persecuted for revealing US war crimes and atrocities. But could you maybe take us through what is this latest stage and what are its implications? So what we're looking at is a final, possibly the most final attempt by the Assange defense team to appeal against the extradition order. And this, in fact, could be decisive in whether or not he, like the two options basically he has is he continues to be in jail and then gets to appeal his case in the United Kingdom or he gets extradited by maybe late February or March. And that both the cases in both situations are not really ideal. But what we're looking at is like one is slightly better because he still gets to fight his case, fight against the extradition process. Because once extradited, that is essentially a death sentence. And we have seen that over the course of the trial. We have reported about that, how it puts him at risk of bodily harm, not just because of the conditions in the US high security prisons, but also because he is a suicide risk. And that pretty much is something that that should actually deter. And that is exactly what happened with Vanessa Lorenzo when she ruled that he could not be extradited. But that is something that should have been in consideration and not diplomatic assurances that the United States gave to the higher courts just to say that they will make sure that he doesn't, well, he doesn't kill himself essentially, or that the prison conditions would be up to the mark. Nevertheless, what we're looking at in February would be just hearings. And pretty much the two day hearing would look into the grounds that Sanch had earlier appealed on against the High Court verdict over his extradition. And it will actually see if there is any grounds for him to continue his appeal. It was earlier rejected by the same High Court by a single judge bench. Now it will be a two judge bench, completely different set of judges actually, who will now decide the case. It's like a lot, a lot of it is at stake. And we have to wait and see how things move forward. We have to at least wait till the hearings actually happen to see if the judges are receptive to the arguments made by the defense team, which is something that we have kind of been able to sort of, if not predict, but kind of, you know, get the, get a grasp of how things will move. And that is something that we have to wait until February. But he continues to be in jail and continues to be in a high security prison, essentially isolated from the world. He is, he's pretty much cut off from his, even his lawyers in most instances. And we have reported that as well. So this entire situation right now is completely, you know, hanging in balance. And we really do not know how things are going to move forward from there. Red Anish, this context also wanted to ask you a bit about the kind of responses that have come. We know that across the world, people have taken to the streets time and again in defense of Assange, in expressing solidarity with him. One is, I think there are more calls for protest, but also in addition to that, what about the official pressure as well? Well, from what we have seen so far, within the UK, the responses have been lukewarm. But interestingly, very recently, in the US Congress, there have been people both from the Democrat and the Republicans, more Republicans actually than the Democrats, who have, you know, called out the entire process, the legal process, who have raised concerns about the attack that continuing this case would have on the First Amendment rights. First Amendment rights in the US are basically a set of rights that includes the press freedoms that are enshrined in the Constitution. So basically, it protects journalists and media from prosecution for the things that they publish in most cases, until and unless there is something that is very egregious. In this case, Assange is being tried, obviously, under the Espionage Act. So they are, and this has never been, this has never happened before, even at the worst abuses of the Espionage Act. No journalist was tried or even indicted. And that is something that many of the Republicans even are seeing as a danger to press freedoms in the country. On top of that, we have in Australia, you know, the movement being so big right now, his home country, because of which you have parliamentarians and even the Prime Minister trying to push for Assange's release. And while happening as it might be, the pressure being, you know, put on the US diplomatic through his diplomatic channels is not nearly enough to actually even evoke a response from the White House at this point in time. And that is, you know, really sad. And it clearly shows how the US doesn't really consider even its allies when it comes to, you know, you know, hounding one man that he has been outing for more than a decade now. On top of that, we have as you pointed out responses from around the world. Most Latin American leaders have called for Assange's release. And so did several European leaders. And this is primarily because they all see the danger of such an indictment, because it pretty much puts everybody, everybody who does journalism around the world at risk of US trying to, you know, hound them, use all its laws and its resources at its disposal to capture any journalist who they see to have, you know, expose them or their war crimes. And Assange's case becomes quite quite a significant one for all of them involved. And it pretty much encroaches and we have reported that the US has encroached on sovereign states, their sovereignty and even, you know, used all sorts of manipulation to get Assange arrested even, let alone the indictment. And the kind of, you know, the kind of case that it has built on it is based on fabrications even. And all of that really alarms everybody. And the fact that it's only certain sections that are still silent clearly shows the kind of complicity that some of the elites within the US and their allies around the world are, you know, have in actually suppressing not just a reportage of war crimes, but also reportage of your imperialism in general. Varanish, thank you so much for that update. We'll come back to you, especially in February when these hearings start. And that's all we have in this episode of Daily Debrief. We'll be back tomorrow for another episode. In the meanwhile, do visit our website peoplesdispatch.org and follow us on all the social media platforms.