 Our number one enemy is ignorance and I believe that is the number one enemy of everyone. It's not understanding what is actually going on in the world. It's only when you start to understand that you can make effective decisions and effective plans. Now, the question is who is promoting ignorance? Well, those organisations that try to keep things secret and those organisations which distort true information to make it false are misrepresentative. In this latter category, it is bad media. It really is my opinion that the media in general are so bad we have to question whether the world wouldn't be better off without them all together. They're so distorted to how the world actually is that the result is we see wars and we see corrupt governments continue on. One of the hopeful things that I have discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past 50 years has been a result of media lies. The media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough if they hadn't read printed government propaganda they could have stopped it. But what does that mean? Well, that means basically populations don't like wars and populations have to be fooled into wars. Populations don't willingly with open eyes go into a war. So if we have a good media environment, then we'll also have a peaceful environment. Thank you very much. Good morning or good evening wherever you are. We know people are dialing into this Free the Truth meeting from Australia, the Americas, from Europe and from Britain. Thank you very much everybody for dialing in. Our Free the Truth seminars as you know are essentially events where we bring together some really knowledgeable and experienced panelists to talk about the issues and the concerns we have in relation to the prosecution of Julian Assange. The Free the Truth seminars were created last year by Professor Ian Monroe and myself and the reason we put these together is because we found that the public debate in relation to Julian's prosecution was completely distorted and we wanted to change the narrative. Today I'm very glad to welcome to the panel Andrew Fowler who is a very experienced journalist, Serena Tenari. Serena is a journalist joining from Switzerland and has also been involved in journalists speaking up for Assange. I'd also like to welcome and I think his audio is now active. Craig Murray who has been doing a sterling job reporting from court and we're so grateful to him for doing this at a time when he's going through an incredibly difficult time himself in relation to legal proceedings against him. We'll also shortly be joined by John Bilger who is moving into this call from another meeting. I'd like to thank all of our guests both via consortium news who are very kindly streaming this event and online via Zoom. In terms of the structure of today's meeting, we'll start off with about 10 minutes each from our expert panelists and then we will go into Q&A and a discussion. If you have questions please, if you're on Zoom please post it via the question and answer tab and we'll try and answer as many as we can where there are questions which are not being answered correctly at this time we'll try and pick them up elsewhere. I can see John Bilger's now joined. John before we start could I just double check that your camera's working because it seems to be focused on the other side. Can you hear us John? Ah, perfect now we can see you and John you're still muted but you don't need to worry about that we'll unmute you when you come to speak. So, welcome John. John's been a stalwart supporter of Julian and a fantastic journalist over a lifetime of wonderful investigative reporting from various parts of the world and really on the anti-imperialist, anti-whore position and providing model and intellectual leadership in relation to that so we're very glad to have John Bilger on the panel as well. And once again thanks to Consortium News for streaming it and Cathy Vogan who's kindly arranging the technicals for today. I'd like to start by asking John Bilger if he will offer some thoughts in relation to the courage and the journalism of Julian because that's an aspect of discussion that isn't picked up much in the mainstream media and I know John's worked with Julian and known him for a while and so John over to you. Just a second John, I'm just going to unmute you. Can you? Am I unmuted? You are. Thank you. Please go ahead. Wonderful feeling. I think to answer that question deeper, one has to understand the enormity of the forces that face WikiLeaks, face Julian himself at the moment and face all of us. I don't think this is really understood entirely by the public although I think it's certainly beginning to drip through. It's a situation whereby the US is now rampant, secrecy is rampant, the absence of due process in justice is becoming rampant. I mean here we have an emblem of it in the in the so-called trial of Julian Assange where any new rule can be implanted in the trial. The judge can direct or misdirect in any way she sees fit. So justice is ebbing away and it has been for a long time. Journalism itself, free journalism exists now only on the internet. All the spaces that were once in the mainstream media which certainly were part of my own career have all but gone. Now there is, I suppose it must be called a dissident journalism. So the world of comprehension of understanding of justice, the political world, our day to day political world has changed completely. And the forces that are changing it are now ranged against Julian. Julian's WikiLeaks really blew the whistle on this extraordinary upheaval in our lives. Yes it revealed how wars were fought but we possibly knew that before but it gave us the kind of detailed evidence that our politicians lied to us in public and said something else to us, lied to us and spoke with one voice in private and another in public. Julian's personal resistance to this is quite extraordinary. Whenever I've visited him over many years in the embassy and or lately at Belmarsh, I am staggered by his resilience. But he can still muster a wicked sense of humor in the middle of this. I don't know whether that's still so. I haven't seen him for a while now. But his, his formidable personality and his formidable courage. I think this can't be emphasized enough is really at the center here. I don't know how I would, and I've often said this to him how I would behave with the pressures on me that he's had to experience. So understanding this courageous individual and what he's going through understanding that his trial is emblematic of huge changes that are touching all our lives. It's too easy to give them a word. Fascism comes up, but no, no, that's too easy. It means something else that is washing over us now that is taking away freedoms, democracy, our rights, our basic rights. That's very much a broad brush of it and we, we see the, the contempt for those freedoms in the conduct of this extradition hearing. The conduct by the judge. The way a so-called superseding indictment of a lot of nonsense is allowed to be part of the proceedings having been announced at a press conference in June and giving the defense. No opportunity to prepare itself. Has this happened before? Perhaps I don't recall it. Even the words Kafka don't apply now. These are very dark times and at the center of it is Julian Assange and that's why he needs all our support. Thank you, John. I think that reference to Kafka is really interesting. I queue every morning at the court for the two seats that are available in the public gallery. And it just astonishes me that this is what open justice is all about that the judge reserves three spaces in the public gallery which between the two galleries has 64 seats. So she reserves three spaces for VIPs. The actual public are given two spaces and five or six members of the family that the spaces in the main court. And those of us in the public gallery are looking at a screen not larger than my computer screen at the far end of a room which has nothing to do with the court. What's also interesting is the kind of subtle intimidation that you have where you're told you can take in paper and pencil but you're not allowed to write on it. And you know these kinds of bizarre requirements that are placed upon us at the court the fact that amnesty reporters on frontier also queuing with me to get into the public gallery. This is the trial is a real downer but actually in today's meeting what we're trying to do is think about how much we have changed how much we have learned how much we have. So Julian has given us in terms of what he's revealed to the world but also in terms of the avenues that he's opened up for us to be courageous ourselves and I'd like to invite our next speaker is herself a very courageous investigative journalist Serena to tell us a little bit about what she thinks Julian has contributed to courage and journalism through his work Serena over to you. Thank you and thank you for having me in this amazing panel with such a valuable fellows. So WikiLeaks and Julian Assange work have been in my opinion of or the opinion of many of us they've been a game changer for investigative journalism worldwide. Of course journalists have been working before with whistleblowers with the confidentially disclosed information. But WikiLeaks opened a brand new era there. And it's not by accident that after that plenty of investigative journalism organizations and projects have been focusing on the keyword leaks. Think about what this keyword did for the success of ICIJ the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. I am also a member of ICIJ became popular worldwide with Panama Papers Swiss leaks Luxembourg leaks and many other collaborative projects that beer in their title leaks. Also I believe that Julian Assange work and WikiLeaks disclosures empowered investigative journalists worldwide. Also because it showed editors and publishers that this kind of journalism is not only really in the public interest but also that he can sell nicely. Because readers loved all those important stories about what was really happening at Guantanamo in Iraq in Afghanistan. I mean I think all of us working as investigative journalists we know that it's not always easy to convince your editor to do one investigation. I mean it's a quite complex line of work and suddenly after that time editors started to be quite hot to have more investigative journalism stories. Because you know editors and publishers of course they are also quite focused on the business model. How are the audiences reacting and what happened thanks to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks showed that this can be also rewarding in terms even of business model. What they are doing out of that this is another story if that has really improved the quality of journalism. We are really in dark times as John just said. I am frankly stunned and ashamed and I want to say this loud today by the silence of most mainstream media and journalists on Julian Assange faith. Many many fell for this mirroring and misinformation campaign. Many I need to say also this maybe not enough spine. I'm not sure I don't want to judge but slowly is getting really late too many are not speaking up. And most importantly I'm really outraged by the silence of those that actually built a career collaborating with WikiLeaks publishing republishing WikiLeaks and Julian Assange work collaborating with them. And now they are all silent. So I think investigative journalists need to raise their voice and they need to stand up in defense of Julian Assange and also of our duty and our right to disclose information in the public interest and about the right to know the truth and not be lied to. And this is a universal right we need to stand for that without going to jail possibly. That's why we launched speak up journalists speak up for Assange together with Nikki Hager from New Zealand and blush Zgaga from Slovenia and the support of many other fellows mainly most investigative reporters but many joined us now we are 1500. But still we should be 10 times more. So what is going on. Courage Deepa you asked me to speak also about the courage Julian Assange. Well, you need it if you are an investigative journalist, you need thick skin, you need resilience, because you'll be permanently under pressure. You must learn to handle the fear this mirroring you need to be able to defend your work with your editor with the legal councils of your media outlets, the people and organizations that you are going to expose and they will never be your friends. If not, on the contrary, they will try to make you suffer. So, basically, Julian Assange has been extremely courageous, extremely. And where it's really key, I think, is that it's our duties, our first duty when working with whistleblowers to protect them. So protect their anonymity, make everything we can to keep them safe. And this is difficult. At times it's very difficult. And on a personal note recently, I could not protect one whistleblower and they had to drop the story, because the alternative would have been that this person would have paid a lot for that. And what Julian Assange did here, he risked his own safety to do that, and it's now been punished for that. With a freedom and human rights deprivation that is going on since over 10 years. Are we okay with that? I'm not. Protecting Chelsea Manning and helping Snowden. And also refusing, let's not forget this, he refused at any cost to disclose the identity of the DNC files source. That would have been very helping him if he would have done that. At least also to not alienate from him the support of many American fellows. That because of that, they don't want to sign with us and they don't want to even speak about Julian Assange, but he didn't do that. So he's paying a very hefty price for sticking to the highest evicts of investigative journalism in the public interest. He was bold, he was very courageous, but he failed badly at protecting himself. And that's, I have to say, is quite typical of investigative journalists. Mark Rakers, I mean, we are really known for being very bad in that because we work at impossible times. We work at night on Sundays. We work all the time. We disregard a healthy lifestyle because we put first this right. I mean, it's okay, but it's hard to be a life partner of an investigative journalist as my husband as any partner that has an investigative journalist in the family. So actually, Julian Assange ended up being smeared, framed, jailed in a max security prison, while the world keeps running and spinning quite crazily now. He's in a limbo. And what that means, I mean, finally, Julian Assange put definitely the public interest before his own life and this pain for it. So in terms of achievements without WikiLeaks, we would not know about the tortures in Guantanamo. We would not know that we have been constantly lied to in all the recent years wars. Collateral murders video showed how the US Army showed knowingly on civilians, including two writers journalists that got killed there, and including children that were severely wounded. So the extent of global surveillance, so how many things we wouldn't know today if was not for the work of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. So he deserves to be freed, and he deserves to be honored for the incredible contribution to the public interest and to journalism. Thanks, Serena. And I think it's very interesting that you referred to this idea of keeping Julian in limbo, because as the Stratford League showed, the idea was to move Julian from country to country, keep him in legal limbo. And essentially that's what's happening in the case as we see it now, because even if Julian wins or loses, it still goes through to appeal and for years Julian will be tortured and harassed in prison. But again, coming back to the courageousness of what he did and what's different about what he did, and what was special. I'd like to move over to Andrew Fowler, who's a veteran journalist in Australia, who's written a lot about Julian and who understands how investigative journalism works. So Andrew, over to you. Could you tell us a little bit about, you have about 10 minutes Andrew, thank you. Sorry, Andrew, you're still muted. Can I just try and unmute you beg your pardon. I think what makes Julian Assange the target of the most powerful countries in the world, the five eyes countries that work together, gathering information so they can share the spoils of whatever they gather. The reason that he is so important and is the target of these repeated attacks on him on his credibility on his personality is because he has pointed out the lies we've been told over decades, over decades we've been lied to about wars, torture, theft, grand theft, banking theft, the torturing of people in Guantanamo Bay, and all the rest of it about the wars in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. That's the reason why he is the focus of such a vitriolic attack. If he'd been like any other time serving journalist and just being a sonographer for the State Department, we'd never have heard of him. He'd be working on the back bench of the New York Times or somewhere else, but because he stood up and revealed the truth, and the reason that it was important when he spoke and he revealed the truth was because we weren't learning this stuff 30 years after the event. We were learning it in real time. This is the first time we have ever learnt the truth about the lies we've been told. And that's why he had to be hunted down and silenced. That's the reason why. I'm in Australia at the moment. I can watch as a journalist as a member of the International Federation of Journalists. I can watch his hearing. The general public can't. Why is that? Why can't the general public see what we see as journalists? It's because the institutions of state believe that we can be controlled. They've got an idea that somehow it's possible to control us, but maybe people like Penn or Amnesty International, that's more radical, but journalists are trainable. And that's what they've done. They've singled him out for the special attention because of who he is. And they've blocked everybody else from seeing that sham of a trial, sham of a hearing that's going in the court, which Craig's written so much about. John's spoken about in the past because of the danger that he poses, because of the danger that he poses to the general public, seeing the case being waged against him. And they think the fourth estate is basically being shut down. The fourth estate is being controlled, but you can't control the general public. And that's the danger. And that was Assange's great strength. He knew if he revealed to the general public out there by posting his material online that the journalists couldn't fabricate. They couldn't twist the story because the public could read the documents. When they saw the story in the paper, they could actually click through and see whether or not they were being lied to. And that made him an extraordinarily dangerous person to have running around as a journalist. I've watched this case unfolding online and I've seen witnesses giving evidence and being cross-examined and not having the document they're being cross-examined on because they hadn't been sent to them early enough, only the night before. What kind of an investigation is this? Where the witness then has to say to the prosecutor, oh, by the way, can you read me out the words in the documents so that I can then work out what my response to this is? I mean, this is a sham. This is absolutely a sham investigation. And the fact that the judge allowed the indictment, the other indictment, which when they realized that basically the other stuff was never going to stick because it was so thin on the ground. Let's lower the bar. Let's just say that he's just hacking and he's been encouraging people to hack. So they just slip that in and she, the judge, says, fine, we'll accept that. And let's just move on. What is this that's happening in Britain, in my old country? I'm not saying it was particularly perfect when I left it, but it seems to have really lost a lot in the last 20 or 30 years since I was a resident journalist in London. I mean, there are a number of things with the IRA, there were problems with the prosecutions and all these things, but never as blatant as this. I have never seen in all my years of reporting and sitting in courts far too long in my younger years, never seen such an appalling process as I saw unfold on the internet with that hearing. Thank you Andrew. I think I wanted to pick up on a couple of things, one of which Serena talked about earlier, which was about protecting sources and as we all know what Julian's currently being, what the prosecution seems to be focusing on is that Julian helped Chelsea with a password hash that allowed her to protect herself. And this protection of whistleblowers that Julian is so committed to is what he's actually being tried for and they're pretending that this is him subverting legal process. And the other thing you talk about, and I just wanted to flag this for those of you who are joining us and who are not following the court trials, is that, you know, we're talking about journalists in court and there's a small amount or limited number of them following through the cloud video platform. Some of these journalists have bothered to come and see what's going well a small amount of independent journalists have but most of the mainstream journalists have not bothered to come and see what's happening in the queue for the public gallery for those of us who are queuing from five or six in the morning. They're not coming to see when, you know, quite intimidating looking policemen with machine guns come and ask us what are you doing in this queue. What are you doing for the public gallery. There's five of us or four of us standing there because we know only two will get in. And yet, are you queuing for the public gallery is the kind of question they ask us, do you think you will get in. And this is all very gentle and superficial, but it is, it is about intimidating people who may be very nervous to be standing there in a dark tunnel, waiting to be let in through the side door into the public gallery. And then when we go up to the up six flights of stairs I have a disability and I was told I can't use the disabled entrance because I lose my place in the queue. You go up six flights of stairs you're sitting in the public gallery. The court takes a break for 10 minutes and the judge has risen. And if somebody in the public gallery whispers to the person next to them to ask for the time a police, police woman comes in and tells us we're not allowed to move or speak. And if we do in every break we will be forced to climb down the six flights of stairs and climb back up again. And this is all the while in this supposed journalists area which is within this secondary court. Most of the journalists who were there on the first day weren't there on later days. So there's a small handful of them who stuck with it. But even then if you look at the reporting either on the press or on the television. It's, it's pretty basic. Anyway, before I go on to another rant. I'm going to invite somebody whom we've been very grateful that for it for the amount of work he's put in at this point in time and the emotional toll this must take on him, because it is indeed very emotional reading some of what he writes about. So I'd like to welcome former ambassador Craig Murray journalist whose card is still stuck with the, the energy somewhere which we hope will be delivered to him shortly, but over to you Craig thank you very much for joining us. I'm just going to unmute you Craig and just check whether the sound is working. Okay, you can hear me. And I'd like to start by apologizing to people that I'm going to have to disappear off quite quickly after I finish. I'm a guest in someone else's home someone was kindly looking after me in the countryside for the weekend so I can put it to it next week. I'm, I'm going to talk a bit about the, about the child that's most of the hearing that's mostly what's on my mind. We're a little suspicious about the break for the alleged COVID scare, which seemed to me very like a boxer on the ropes or on a suddenly discovers a split glove or something so there needs to be a, there needs to be a break because the prosecution apparently had a couple of not such good days, but there's a, there's this terrible danger of seeing drawn in game and thinking, you know, well actually the defense is doing quite well. I'm believing that what we're seeing is, is a real process because if it were a real process, then they would be wanting everyone to see it. It would be open. They would be doing everything to encourage journalists and members of the public to see it was the very fact that they are keeping it so shrouded in secrecy and mystery and doing everything that can possibly be done to limit the audience, both the physical audience and the, and, you know, to limit reporting is very, very difficult reporting in the mainstream media. That shows something as well. Great, can I ask you for a second please? What do you mind switching off your videos so because we're having some difficulty hearing everything you say, and we think the quality might be better if you switched off your video. You need to use the stock video tab at the bottom. No, that's good. I also look much better on radio. I always find the, can you, can you hear me okay now? We can perfectly please go ahead. I was saying with the very fact that they are so limit the audience and going out of their way to limit the audience shows us that they really are quite scared of Julian and they're scared of what And that's not simply a matter of being scared of revealing what corrupt process it is because it's a very corrupt process, very unfair. So of course the stunning evidence we've heard of the stuff that WikiLeaks have reported and I thought Clive Stafford in particular really rocked you back in your seat when he was talking about the extent of the assassination and murder. And with a lot of grainy detail and then talked about how WikiLeaks had helped him in seeking legal remedies, these wrongs. You could understand why they didn't want a large audience to be discussing that. The prosecution This isn't a political case, they claim, and they also claim, and this is what they've been key, they're trying so so hard to differentiate to say Julian's not a journalist, and this is not a depth to mainstream media journalists. Of course, you know, large number of mainstream media genuinely anything with the noise of the government in the first place. But the fact of Julian under really very Craig, you've broken up, we can't hear you. We're hoping you'll be back in a second. Please bear with us Craig styling in from a remote location so it's a little bit tricky. It does the sound. It looks like Craig's dropped out at the call. So I'm hoping that he will join us again in a second. In the meanwhile, while we're waiting for Craig to join. I'm going to try and take one of, sorry, I'm going to try and take one of the questions in the Q&A. And this is, this is probably something that Andrew and John Pilger might be able to answer because it's not something I'm very conversant. Can you still hear me. So, the question for the for the panelists is, was Julian Assange influenced by the corruption and Queensland police in the 80s and 90s, and how they actually got caught and improved by a special state investigation. I think the panel is aware of this. Andrew, I'm going to try and unmute you. And then I'm going to go next to Eva Jolie, who's going to give us some information in relation to a forthcoming event. Look, I'm not aware of that, that direct connection but. Andrew, we can't hear you yet. I'm unmuted. I'm not muted. Okay. I'm not aware. I mean, the person's referring to the Fitzgerald inquiry, the investigation followed the four corners, revelatory piece, which showed corruption in Queensland. And I'm not sure the direct connection between that and Julian's work, although he was born in Queensland. But he was certainly really motivated by the bellicose attitude of the United States at one time, the fear of we'd have a hot war. And that Australia would be caught up in that war as a very close and some may say a sycophantic ally of the United States that we would be sucked up into it all. And he terrified him, and he thought that the best way to stop war was to have the truth told about what wars were about. So that was that was more of the connection than Fitzgerald, the Fitzgerald inquiry, which revealed police corruption in Queensland. It goes without saying that police corruption in Queensland rolls very easily off the tongue because it's something that was endemic in the police force at that time and pretty much throughout Australia. And now we don't even worry about police corruption because the corruption is at a much more exalted level in Australia. It reaches down right up into the highest levels of government. Thanks. John, did you want to add to that? I'm going. Hopefully you're on YouTube now John. How's that. I agree with Andrew. I don't think it had a direct connection at all. Julian grew up in a country. Which I did. That is consumed by the United States. I think it was President Lyndon Johnson, who regarded it as the next rectangular piece of American real estate south of Texas, according to one of his ambassadors like paraphrase that, but that's just about it in a nutshell. Much of our life, our public life, our media life, our cultural life is integrated into US designs in a way that really can't even be imagined here at the UK as a baton carrier for the United States as plenty of those features, but nothing as profound as the US. And so that has produced some, it's produced a well to write would say of compliance in the media and the concentrated media but it's produced some very interesting Mavericks, some great reporters and others who have been touched by this oppression in their lives in Australia, and Julian was clearly is clearly one of them exceptional. And he, I think his, his understanding of the influence of the United States on his country, in drawing it into every colonial war that it fought. And I think that came over a period of time. And when I first met Julian I was struck by by he, his view on this reminded me of others. There are a select few in Australia who, who's, who are almost renegades, renegades against a popular political culture. And I think that's where it came from Julian himself and from his growing up and the influences of his growing up but it certainly came from being in Australia being in Queensland which is certainly deserves the distinction of one of the most corrupt places on earth. Where the premier a certain Joe Belki Peterson knighted everybody and let the hands reside in various tools all over the place. That wouldn't have. undoubtedly influenced him but that's a way of life in Queensland. And I was, I was hoping that we get all speakers to finish and I was hoping that Craig would be able to dial back in. We've sent him a message asking if you can use the phone line so if anybody's in touch with Craig, please ask him to use the phone line to dial back in because we don't have to worry about internet speeds we already have tried as well to let him know. But before we go into the meat of the question and answers I'd like to take a contribution from someone who's who's a phenomenal anti corruption campaigner who's been known for her. She's known for her brightness for the for her courage and who's actually going to be speaking at a panel for the truth panel on the 27th just so everybody knows there's going to be another one on the 27th of September with a few participants from France, Germany and the Nordic speaking this time. And it is the wonderful Eva Jolie ever your cameras not yet on but I'm hoping we'll still be able to hear you. Over to you Eva. Yes, do you hear me can you see me. Good morning. Good morning everybody. And thank you Deepa for your organization and never giving up in spite of all the obstacles that we meet in this parody of justice that Julian Assange is going through. Just one comment one focus that we should not lose. I'm sure that everybody here is very much aware of it, but which what is on stake is really the US will to dominate the legal world to have the US law. Be priority over British law, Norwegian law, French law. If Julian is extradited. This means that that the US will be able to control everything what's which is published in other countries. This we have seen in the corruption fight where the Americans think that they are competent. If you have made a transaction in dollar for instance, they have kind of universal competence and that is a way for them to also be very harmful to European industry as you all know. We all know the role that the Swedish prosecution services and British prosecution services have played in the case against Julian Assange without the Swedish arrest order. All this would not have existed. This fact is in the Nordic countries absolutely not understood, not seen. And the Nordic press is very silent about Julian Assange. The most important newspapers that they make a lot of articles out of Assange leaks are not supporting him. And even Afton Poston's new chief reductor is denying that he never used the leaks in spite of the fact that all the Afton Poston's journalists knew that there even there were WikiLeaks room in Afton Poston. And in order to try to put it on the agenda, some Norwegian organizations have gathered to make an event on the 15th of September on Tuesday from 13 to 1430. There will be speakers and there will be a delegation to the Swedish Embassy to give them a petition about the role that they have played in this catastrophe. This event is organized by Norwegian pen by Nytid and will attend Arne Rutt who was the reductor-in-chief of Dagens Nyheter. The main organizer is also John Jones who founded a long time ago Global Justice Work. He is working very much for Global Justice for the Third. And so they have invited Arne Rutt and a journalist, a Swedish journalist called Jesus Alkala that you might know. He has carried out a tremendous work going through all the pre-judicial documents in the Swedish Prosecution Service and in the British. And he has made a resume of this that has been published a few days ago in Dagens Adiana in Sweden. This is very important. This event is important because for the Swedish, the Norwegian opinion is important. So you can, you can attend it by streaming on, if you go to the place called Set Sjullian Free. So don't forget on Tuesday to have a look on this event. Thank you. Thank you, Eva, thank you very much for contributing and for making the time to join us today as well. I'd like to go back to the question and answers and I'm hoping that Craig will dial in at some time. I know that some of you have had specific questions for Craig in relation to the events which he's documenting in his blog. So we're still trying to get a hold of Craig, but I'd like to start with a question from Gabriel Morales, who says, Julian is clearly being used as an example of what could happen to journalists and to whistleblowers. And who could be the next person or outlet in the queue after him? Is that, is that what you were asking Gabriel, if you have anything else to say, please contribute and then I'll, I'm going to ask for a couple of questions to you if I may. The next question is, does the panel know of any possible controls the parliament in the UK has over the courts. For example, early day motions in parliament are prohibited from referencing matter before the courts. And how could awareness be best put to pressure the judiciary? It's this question for me. No, Eva, but if you could answer it, please feel free, John, did you want to start? Who's next? I think I'm quite answering that. It's a large myth developing that the press, as such, as it exists, the so-called mainstream or whatever we want to call it. And from the Guardian to the Sun in Britain, New York Times in the US and, and all over the West is somehow endangered by this trial. Yes, it is the principle of a free press. But there isn't a free press. Where is the free press in Britain? Where is the free press in Australia? Where is the free press as Eva has just described in so many words, really, in in the Nordic countries when I was in Norway a couple of years ago, addressing with Julian on the screen. A conference I found the most ignorant hostility. So I don't think any of these journalists are at risk at all. I think they can all breathe freely. They're all doing as they should do. And I think we have to understand who was at risk here. The majority of exceptional journalists are at risk. Those like Julian, who tells the truth, who tell it in a way that threatens the system now so rampant and and rapacious. That it touches all our lives, but only a few journalists have ever challenged it. I would say, I mean, what in the in Australia. I often refer back to one program about Julian, quite some years ago, made by Andrew Fowler. The one honest program. Where were the rest. Yes, there's been some good reporting. We mustn't wipe them out completely. But for one comprehensive piece of television investigative journalism. Andrew's program. I think it was when was it Andrew 2013. That was the only one. Now where that's that's that's Australia where the, the, the press is dominated 70% of the capital city press is controlled by Rupert Murdoch in this country. The same house. I think we have to understand that there isn't something called a free press there is. It's almost as if the principle is bereft. Yes, there is a principle of a free press but we haven't had that for very long time. And that is demonstrated by the shock of Julian Assange. He has shocked the system. He has shocked journalists who regard themselves on the BBC and the various institutions as you know all those. All those words they use about themselves impartial and objective and so on. They've been telling each other this nonsense for so much for so long that Julian arrives and shocks them. It's free journalism. This is real journalism. And in my opinion the reason there has been so much hostility and smear against against Julian is that he has shamed so many journalists you listen to some of those early interviews on the BBC with him, hearing smearing from from people who are clearly threatened by what he represents. So I think we have to understand that and that makes it now very interesting, I think, where it tells us that journalism isn't dead as some large numbers of the public believe it is. It's actually alive and well in a few, in a few exceptions. And Julian is the emblem of that. I'd like to take a slightly different angle on this and move over to Professor Ian Monroe, who was my colleague and co host on this on the freedom to events and Ian's a specialist in whistleblowing. And I wondered Ian if you could share your thoughts in terms of the protection of whistleblowers because John spoken eloquently about journalists and I will come back to Andrew and Serena and Eva. But Ian, did you have anything to add in relation to the protection of whistleblowers in terms of what Julian's done. Yeah, absolutely. I support all the comments that have already been made by the brilliant journalists and activists on this panel and thanks for attending. I read most of your work and I would say that one of the differences between Julian Assange and the brilliant work being that has been done by the panelists is that he as John Pilgers already really pointed out. He reinvented journalism along with his colleagues at WikiLeaks when you know when many newspapers and so on and so forth were a part of that was the technology. But part of it is this is this the way in which he engaged with whistleblowers. And this is in parallel with a political move which happened really with the Obama government and so on to start targeting going far more aggressively against whistleblowers. So on the one hand you've got you've got awful things happening in terms of the rise of right wing authoritarian governments. But on the other hand, even with the so-called moderates, self-professed left wing people, they are hammering politicians. They're hammering whistleblowers in a way not seen ever, in fact. And he's invented this sort of form of whistleblowing network, whistleblowing journalism. And the sheer number of feels that this is affected. It's not simply one thing. It is Trafigura and the environment. You know, it is the financial crisis of 2007, 2008. Guantanamo Afghanistan Iraq. It is the national security state. Snowden helping Snowden leave Hong Kong and also the bolt seven leaks and really revealing information about the way in which our governments can now have immense power to conduct information operations against people and organizations that they find inconvenience that once likely challenging them, such as in fact WikiLeaks, of course. And the number of private security firms that have targeted WikiLeaks free on record, HB Gary, UC Global and Stratford. It's amazing. But yeah, the way in which whistleblower he reinvented journalism partly around this new distributed form of journalism, but also this protection of whistleblowers and the way in which he worked with whistleblowers. And of course, many whistle, some of those whistleblowers, we still don't know who they are, but many also lent their took a risk and came out anyway to get their message out, say this is real. This is important and so on. But yeah, he's reinvented certainly reinvented journalism. And I'm not sure whether I'm saying anything particularly, adding back that much more to, I mean, it's, it's, we started off with his courage, but his immense intellect and integrity as well is really quite remarkable. Thanks, Ian. It's amazing when I see people like you and the, and the kinds of events you organized in the past. I know there was one in 2019 that Andrew spoke at and so did Craig. So thank you very much for joining us again and answering some of the questions in the Q&A. I know it was a bit of a sprang on you at the last minute in terms of the answering the Q&A. We're just hoping to host over to Serena, please. Serena, would you like to offer any thoughts on either of those questions? No, I'm a bit like in the chat, we see some questions which are totally reasonable, but I think we are all a bit at loss there. Like how to, to, to raise the voices of the general public or like one big concern is also as Eva put it, I mean, this is what is going on is extremely dangerous for the future. I mean, overruling like national lows to make possible that the United States can extradite an Australian, an Italian, a Swiss. So all these are really very concerning questions. And I'm not sure if we found until now, I mean, there is a, I think there is surely a large support for Julian Assange. We have the lawyers, we have some journalists, we have many citizens and many committees, but somehow sometimes I'm really like at loss, like, what could we do more than that? Because at the end of the day, we are still a minority. And so this is a bit for me, more of an open question also for the other panelists. I mean, what should be doing more than that? Because I don't see big major changes. I think Serena that we were talking about this within another forum and one of the things we were talking about is somebody said to me when I was queuing outside that, well, two million people marched against the Iraq war and the Iraq war still took place. What's different about Julian Assange's case, isn't he definitely headed to the US and to a maximum security prison. And I think the difference partly is that we firstly we have to have a sustained debate it cannot just be one march or one protest. Secondly, I think, and that's really hard to sustain, of course, at a time when people are separated and individualized due to COVID and also under various pressures because of things. And I think that the other thing is the use of institutional arrangements because the march against the march to parliament was, of course, you would say parliamentary institutional arrangements could be used but here we're having a legal system and a judicial system, which needs to play by its own rules and that's not what's happening. And I was, Eva, I don't know if Eva's still here and I was wondering if, perhaps next, Eva, are you still online. Yes, I am. I lost you on the screen. Ah, there, perfect. I was wondering whether you could talk to us a little bit about the institutional context of, because clearly that's what you're trying to do with getting to asking about the processes in Sweden and in the Nordics and whether you wanted to offer a few thoughts on that and then I'll come back to Andrew Fowler. Well, like everybody, I'm very shocked about the process going on today and the way they are not playing by the rules and they are not trying to, they're not trying even to give it an appearance of legality. I'm rather familiar with the fact that sometimes trust is biased and but it is hidden here. It is quite, quite open. The church in charge do not even try to hide that she is reading up judgments that she has pre-written. It is really contrary to all kinds of principles. Trust is contradiction and you cannot make up your mind before you have heard all the parties. What I read in Craig Murray's Referat is that the church, I don't remember her name, she has written everything down and she only reads it. This is a violation of the contradictory principle and also that the hearing is not public and I'm not trying to hide it. They're hiding maybe behind COVID but it's not sufficient. Nobody will believe that. So we are very much afraid that the result here is also pre-written, that he will be extradited. I think the hope for us is that he could appeal but I also know that there is no automatic appeal anymore in the UK. So that he can even be denied an appeal. So I think this is very worrisome to see so clearly that the church do not care about the image she is giving even. And this is a principle that we have all learned, churches, that justice should not only be trust but it should be seen to be trust and the spectacle they are giving is so outrageous. So this I think is very bad for the UK. It's very bad for the image of justice in the UK. But maybe this is the truth. Maybe this is how the English justice works. Maybe it is not well working nowhere. But I don't know. I know that in France justice has become quite inadequate. We are not anymore able to give justice to people for very many reasons. One of them is understaffing the pureness of the structure. But this we have known for years but it has come to a point that is very dangerous democratically I think. So we are really right in fighting against the extradition of Julian Assange because it's about the domination of the US over the intellectual world. And we cannot live with that. So it's very important that he's not extradited. And I don't know what we can do more. We have been really the COVID had made it easier for them because it takes it also away from our preoccupation. People are afraid they care about their health and also the Swedish case. They did win the public opinion with it. That is true. And we have a very long way to go to get people to understand what it's all about. That it's really an important principle question. Because of this sex case and the fact that people do not take the time to really look into it to know really what happened. They only stop at right and that's it. So I think the public opinion, we lost the public opinion on this case. And this is also the very huge responsibility of Marianne and me and the Swedish prosecution services. Thank you Eva. Deepa, could I ask when the discussion, when you imagine the discussion will end, just that I have to be somewhere how much, how much longer. We had said we would finish in 90 minutes so we started at 11 where. There's also a chat tab on the side. John, if you want to send any messages through. I don't know if you can say that. Andrew, over to you. Did you have something you wish to add? Well, I think I'm evil is raising the question about legality and and the effect of the Assange hearing on the gallery, the English law, you know that some recently in a few days ago, a minister of the government stood in parliament, I recollect and and said that the United Kingdom was going to break an international treaty governed by law governed by international law. Yes. This is extraordinary that they would not only set out to break it, but would publicly state it. And it goes to the point of this is not done behind closed doors anymore. It's out in the open. We are out in the open on these issues now. And the other issue to bear in mind is that we talk about journalists because journalists love talking about journalists, and I love talking about journalism. It's my it's my one speciality. Actually, what happens to do in Assange is about everybody. The reach of the United States around the world, the hegemonic nature of their law of their systems reaching out around the world means that nobody escapes from the United States law. This is not actually about journalism. It's actually about the sovereign rights of every country to have their own laws and to protect their own people. What's the point of having an Australian passport? If you're not protected by your government, if your government doesn't speak up for you, if your government only speaks up for you, if you're running drugs in Indonesia, or your government can kick down on a country that's less powerful will never reach up and threaten a more powerful country. What's the point of sovereignty? That's, in my opinion, what the persecution, the so called prosecution of doing Assange actually reaches to in a broader way. And maybe you can maybe it's possible to actually bring more people into the tent and say, look, we're always fighting the journalism but actually hear what we're fighting for is for everybody. It's just a different way of dealing with it. Thanks, Andrew. I'm now going to go to another question in the Q&A. And this is somebody asking about, I'm going to gloss over the questions about the Labour Party in Britain because I don't think we have Craig on to really take that on. One of the things somebody in the audience is asking is what we as citizens can do to educate more people and I think that's really difficult at a time when people are quite atomised. So I wondered if the panel has any suggestions on what we can do to organise or also what kinds of contributions different professionals can make, not just journalists but also lawyers, people, doctors etc. And I wondered if any of the panelists would have any suggestions about that as well. So I'll start with John Pilger because I know John has to leave quickly so over to you John. It's about right and wrong deeper. I mean, that's what we're talking about here. Right and wrong. It's wrong what is happening to Julian. It's wrong that the court is conducting itself in this disgraceful way. It's wrong that no so-called so-called journalists from the powerful media have shown any interest, but one day on the first day, the only reporting, and I looked at both the UK and Australian press, was that the judge had told Julian Assange to pipe down. That's what they distill it down to and that's why it's very important that we lose this rather starry-eyed view that all the press are on the side of truth-telling here. They're not. I've never known a time in my reasonably long career when propaganda has so consumed state propaganda, has so consumed all the media. And I think we have to understand that. We have to inform ourselves when Andrew says, yes, journalists like to talk about themselves, but often it's pretty boring actually. What journalists should be talking about is what is happening to them and to journalism as such, because organizations are not monoliths. They're made up of human beings. And if there was, for example, the rise of what I would call a fifth estate playing on the whole notion of the fourth estate, a fifth estate within journalism that journalists demanded to be journalists, not to be puppets of whatever proprietors or institutions, whether or not they're told to be, it doesn't matter. So, yes, Julian reinvented forms of journalism, but I think he also made us aware of how corrupt so much of journalism is and what an extension it is of great rapacious and capricious power, which is now being imposed on one courageous man in this charade of an extradition hearing. Once we're aware of that and support them, those who are real journalists. And we understand what fake news really means that it means turning on the television or picking up any newspaper. We will understand that, then we'll understand that that information, real information, truth is is so important. If, for example, we're going to stop another world war. We're going to implement a rogue superpower, trying its best to provoke an economic superpower into war. I mean, whether or not they're actually deliberately, they sit down and plotting that, I doubt it. But great wars happened by mistake or accident and that's where we're headed. There are greater issues here than whether journalists feel that they are free or not or within organizations or whether they support Julian or not. Julian is different and long may he be different. Great journalists are always different. They've always been exceptional. And it's understanding that and that there are there are many fine journalists and we have to support them. Above all, we have to support Julian. Thanks, John. And just to remind everybody, if you're following this event, please use the hashtag free the truth on Twitter. We'll take one more question before we close. I'm sorry, we've had to curtail the event because the 10 minutes allocated for Craig Murray was abruptly cut short because of it issues. I'd like to invite Gabriel Morales who would like to ask a question. I'm going to unmute you, Gabriel, so that you can be heard. Gabriel, can you hear us and speak. Okay. Thank you. Can you come closer to the microphone so we can hear you please. Please be much louder, Gabriel. We cannot hear you at all. Okay. Well, what I am asking is, do you think eventually the Boris Johnson's or the Queen herself could intervene on behalf of Julian Assange. Thanks. I don't think we have a direct answer to that but unless any one of the speakers wants to answer that. I don't think we can predict what Boris Johnson wants to do really, but John Andrew. Okay. And anybody else with a final question before we close. On that note, I'm just going to say that we, I have tweeted out today at the hand at the rate deeper underscore driver with expert witness testimonies in terms of the things that people can do. One of the important things that we can do is get the message out from the kinds of testimonies that have not been that the US prosecution did not want people to hear they wanted to exclude these expert testimonies. It's very important that these be communicated. So I've tweeted them out today with my under my Twitter handle I'll put it in the chat. But if you could please amplify those included both the extracts and the links to Craig Murray reports. I've also included a link directly to the expert testimony. So people can use that and if you are skilled at extracting information please share it. Please also come and join the protests on Mondays which will take place outside the court. That's really important that don't exit I just aren't campaign Stella Morris is raising funds to support her partner and her husband through this time where they're trying and the and through the court process so please, please support that. And lastly, thank you very much for making the effort to join these calls on a Sunday morning and particular to our speakers Andrew Fowler, Sarah Netinari, John Pilger, Eva and Ian who contributed and to Craig Murray who's not been able to contribute unfortunately but we hope to bring Craig back as we have done at past events so we'll we'll we'll try and figure out a solution to his internet connections while he's in London. But thank you very much everyone for joining us and see you again on the 27th at 11am British standard time. Thank you.