 Thank you for coming. I'm going to start with a few announcements. As always, we thank the Bau Holland Foundation for making this possible. We have still 17 days of activities, so keep track on our website. You can pick up a schedule at the front. And I don't think that the next guest needs much introduction. So I'll just go ahead and welcome Stella Assange. So many friendly faces here. Yep. I don't know if you've been following the last few days, but you've been really encouraging. I mean, I was on the train from Amsterdam to Berlin yesterday. And it's like a six hour long journey. And I did not put down my phone. I was thinking, well, maybe I can rest a bit. No, I was just trying to keep track of all the things that were going on. On Saturday, I think it was last Saturday. Yeah. We did this action in London where we called people to show up at one o'clock and join hands and form a human chain. And it was really mind blowing because we, there was a day, a transport strike had been called. And there were lots of people saying, no, we shouldn't do this. It won't work. But people came, really came through. And there were at least 7,000 people there. And, you know, we weren't just surrounding the parliament on one side. We were crossing both bridges over the Thames and the other side of the Thames. So it's a, it's a, it's a very long human chain. So we calculated it would take 5,000 people and it took, well, there was many more. So at least 7,000 people. And then Julian was shortlisted for the Sakharov Prize, which is something unexpected. We were already, you know, calling the longest a great victory, which it was. But then yesterday morning, we found out that he's one of three finalists. Yeah. So that's, that's massive, you know, just the, the, the contrast or the, you have the US wanting to put him in prison for 175 years in the European Parliament, wanting to give him the highest award of human rights and freedom of thought. So that's really where we're at. Things are really stark now. And Ithaca, the film, it's showing tonight for the second night. I think it's not showing anymore. So if you want to catch it after this, go to the Coliseum. We had a standing ovation there yesterday when it opened. And the director of the festival said that this was the first time she had seen this in the five years of the festival that has been, the five years that she's been leading the festival. She's never seen that before. I even posted a video of the standing ovation because it was really quite moving. It just went on and on. And then she eventually ended it. And, you know, it just keeps on coming. And that's what, well, that's what it takes to free Julian. We need to just keep going and keep building the support of the movement, the awards, the recognition, the denunciation of what's going on until it is politically impossible for this to go through. Because this is, it's not a, this is not a case of a legal process going through the courts. It's the courts being instrumentalized in order to pull off Julian's imprisonment. And we need to completely retake the narrative and the reframing of what's going on. Because what's really going on when, what it really boils down to is that the criminals seized the coercive powers of the state to go after the person who denounced them, right? The one who was trying to bring accountability, then became the victim of the abuse of the law. And the abuse of the law in order to put him in prison. So it's really about reversing that. They reversed the perception in relation to Julian by trying to turn him into someone who is the target of their crimes. Sorry, a bit slow because it's been a long few days. So they reversed the reality in order to reverse it back to show that he's, that he's the one that did the right thing and they're the ones who are the criminals. And not just criminals for what he exposed, but criminals also because he's, because of the measures they've taken against him in the process of his persecution, spying on his lawyers, spying on him and of course conspiring to murder him, conspiring to kidnap him, conspiring to poison him and so on. So we need to start calling them what they are, which is they are the criminals. And Julian is the journalist. And Julian stands for truth and justice and human rights and rule of law. And they do the opposite. I said, I was quite worried reading the news that Julian obviously has been infected with COVID. And I was wondering first, how can that happen in a high security prison that somebody is not safe against COVID? First, then I thought maybe he was infected deliberately. Are there any further information about how he contracted the infection and how he's doing the infection? So I think you have a microphone that you can speak. All right, yes. Well, I mean, this was a frustration always when through the six or seven months that I wasn't able to see Julian during the worst part of the pandemic, that Julian was never going to be safe from COVID because in a place like Belmarsh prison, you have 800 prisoners, but then you also have about 500 staff, people coming in and out all the time going home, getting infected and so on. And then when you're moving through the prison, you're moving to holding rooms. So they take you in one place and then they put all the prisoners together, 30, 40 prisoners in one room and stay there for an hour or two hours while they So Julian was never safe from COVID. He probably got it in the holding room and he's been in lockdown in his cell. So he hasn't left his cell since Saturday last week. This is day seven. He's still testing positive as of today. What is he doing? Is it a diverse kind of infection or is it somehow coping? Well, I mean, I don't want to go into it. Thank you for being here today. It seems to me that a source prosecution is like the case to watch in real time the collapse and the corruptedness of the UK legal system. You're a lawyer yourself. What did this do to your trust in the UK legal system and legal systems in general? Well, I don't think there's any person observing this case, including those with any amount of experience that aren't constantly shocked by what's going on. I mean, since 2010, if you think about the, for example, when the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention delivered its decision and Julian went to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in 2014 and it took them 16, no sorry, it took them over a year to do the investigation about this case. And then they finally delivered their decision in February 2016. And of course, our expectation, and it's not naive, it wasn't a naive expectation, was that if Julian won, then they would comply with the decision of the working group because this is the, you know, the peak decision making body on the issue of arbitrary detention. But what happened? Well, they basically behaved like, you know, like the worst offenders on arbitrary detention. They basically left off the decision. And it's a legally binding decision. It relates to their legally binding international obligations. And they just ignored it. So that was a real kind of eye-opener on how they were prepared to just hold their international obligations, their, yeah, in contempt in spite, you know, in front of everyone to see. Another example of this was in 2012. There was a, you might remember Julian went into the embassy on the 19th of June 2012. And then on the 16th of August 2012 was when Ecuador announced that they would give him political asylum. So they were considering it for about two months. In this period, there was a lot of intimidation at a diplomatic level in the UK. And at one point, when Ecuador had announced that they would give their decision, and I guess the UK had intelligence that it would be giving join political asylum, they then threatened to storm the embassy. And Ecuador publicly denounced it. And the whole Latin American bloc came out against it publicly. And then finally, on the 16th of August, it was publicly announced that Julian was now a political assayee at the embassy. And it wasn't just the diplomatic immunity of the embassy that was protecting him, but actually he had a political, a diplomatic internationally recognized status, which he actually had until Ecuador illegally removed it and let him be arrested by UK police. Okay, on the day that Ecuador announced the asylum being granted, there was lots of police outside. It's a very famous image of around the embassy. There was hundreds and hundreds of police and hundreds and hundreds of supporters and press and everything. And the press has these huge lenses. And they managed to take the picture of a clipboard of one of the police officers. And on that clipboard, it said, arrest Assange, even if he has diplomatic immunity, even if he's in a diplomatic car. Basically, the UK was instructed, the UK police was instructed to violate the Geneva, sorry, Vienna convention, in order to get Julian. So this is at this level, where they will violate the law and then they will deal with the consequences later. They will argue in court that it's legal or that they did it because of this. But the priority was to get Julian. So it's been like this all the way through, that it's just the political imperative of persecuting Julian that is really above the law to their mind. And for Julian, it has been a constant struggle to try to get his rights recognized and respected. And they have been violated throughout increasingly to such a grave degree now that, you know, we're all witnesses to what's going on. But it's been a process of a decade of constant complete disregard and outright violation, not only of his rights, but of, you know, has been the victim of the greatest possible criminal activity against him. I was wondering how much is Julian able to hear and see from what's going on in the world, especially of the, like, now triggered by the war in Ukraine, for example, there's mass unrest among working people. And also, I wanted to congratulate you for your appearance against war criminal John Bolton, which was very principled and brave. And I strongly agree that the reality has to be shown that they are the criminals and not Julian. How much does Julian get to see? Well, not much. We, you know, we try to keep him informed about what's going on, but he can't, obviously he has no internet. So sometimes I read him an article that's interesting, or I send it to him, but obviously he gets it after a while. And lots of people write to him, you know, and I encourage people to do that. It's basically what he can hear from calling me or, you know, the few other people that he can speak to and what people sent to him. But it's only a fraction, obviously. And, you know, it's like the other day when we were at this surround, this human chain around the parliament, and I was trying to convey to him what it was like, because, you know, he had no images. He had, he just had to kind of describe it to him, but you can't really, because it was just, it was really euphoric there. It was like a tangible human solidarity, people coming together where, I think it's also because, you know, you've had Rona and so on, and then there are all these people who support Julian, but they don't necessarily meet each other in person, like they interact on Twitter or whatever. But there was this just like camaraderie, and it was instant, and we had encouraged people to go around wearing something yellow to be recognizable to each other. We had told them, oh, there's this pub over here, people are going to go there afterwards, and like really encouraging people to interact, and it really worked. And because there was like, you know, 20 minutes before we didn't know if we would get enough people to form the chain, and then we did and more, and everyone could see this. And it was just like, yeah, we made it. And everyone knew that they were, they were essential to making the chain longer. So everyone felt like, you know, it's just, it was really exhilarating. And I think everyone who was there kind of came, came out really energized. And I was trying to tell Julian this, but I did my best to convey it. But in the end, it's like, yeah, it worked, and we had extra people. It was really good, and you know, people really happy, but he didn't see it, you know, he didn't experience it. And it's all like that, you know, he's constantly within these four walls. And his, you know, his reality doesn't change. His physical reality doesn't change. And so I tried to talk to him about even the most mundane things, you know, and just like walking down the street and describing what I'm seeing, so that he can picture it. Because after a while, years of being within the same four walls, or same corridor, everything starts vanishing, everything else. And it was a little bit like that in the embassy as well. I mean, it was a lot like that. But not as, you know, this is, this is something else, don't rush. But he knows, he knows that things are, you know, that, that the support is building, and, and he's pleasantly surprised by things like the Sakharov being a Sakharov prize finalist, and this kind of thing. He can tell that it's not just, you know, me trying to keep his hopes up, but actually, there's a, there's a worldwide movement that's coming together, people are really understanding what's at stake that it's urgent that he's, he needs everyone's help, and people are coming out to help. I just wanted to ask you, because you mentioned Sakharov prize. What does that mean for Assange, and also for you, taking into account that more likely he will not get it if you see the other short list of candidates. Will it change something? It's huge. The Sakharov prize nomination is huge. And I was actually, I was in Brussels on Tuesday, and we thought, well, we just have about 24 hours more to talk about the Sakharov prize, because he probably won't make the short list. So we were there, and I was having a conversation, and there were several MEPs there, so 40 MEPs nominated him. And some of them were saying, well, you know, he will never win because the Sakharov prize has become a symbol of, or it has become a tool of political and diplomatic pragmatism, something like that. And my answer was, I'm not here with the expectation that Julian will win. I'm here because you nominated him, and that is huge. It's huge, because just the nomination, now the finalist list, it becomes itself a massive tool for me to be able to continue the campaign. It raises his political profile. You know, it's not a fringe issue when you're one of three finalists for the European Parliament's peak human rights and freedom of thought prize. This is not some marginal cause. This is at the center of the political here and now, and no one can deny that. And so every initiative, big and small, actually builds the momentum and the political context that's needed to say, well, actually Julian's case is constantly being talked about. It's at the center of discussion, you know. The other nominees are the people of Ukraine, Zelensky, and the Columbia Truth Commission. It doesn't matter that he doesn't win. He's one of those three, you know? And it allows us to campaign with the broader audience. So these things are never futile. And it's just like any nomination to awards. You put in a nomination and then there's some selection committee. There's some kind of process, you know, if it's a serious prize, where they don't just throw it away. They have to reach your application. And so that's also a way of educating and informing people. Thank you. So actually, this last you said that it's a way of informing people. That's something I wondered about because I'm not the person who's active on the internet very much. But I was wondering if there is kind of a document summarizing the facts about Julian's case that then I can physically share with people. Because once you find out the facts, it's really horrifying. But it's not necessarily always easy to share chronologically all the things that you know have happened. And I was just wondering if there is some kind of an official document that went in and just print out and give a round? It depends on who your to your audience is. So I mean, just in general, Amnesty International, for example, has very strong statements as to reporters without borders about this being a politically motivated case and so on. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture Niels Meltzer wrote a whole book about it. And that's, you know, that's the kind of definitive deconstruction of the persecution, let's say, to date. There's also another book by Stefania Maurizio, like there's a lot of efforts now being made by various investigative journalists and filmmakers and so on to break this down. And Ithica, the film about our family's fight for Julian, that's a different approach because the approach to through the film that's in the Coliseum tonight is actually, you don't need to know all the detail about the legal case and the political implications and and the history. You don't need to know that, you just need to know that this is a human being that is suffering, that is being persecuted, that is imprisoned for years without charge, that has been spied on, that has been the victim of a murder plot, etc. That's a different way. But I think in terms of like the general audience, I do think it's the cultural exposure through films, through art, and so on that that will overcome this barrier that, oh, it's very complex and I need to, I can't have an opinion unless I understand every little minute detail because, you know, there's some people that follow this thing for 12 years and they have very good episodic memory. But that's not the expectation anyone should have. The case is so outrageous and such a travesty, but the injustice of it kind of stands on its own for everyone to see and I think that's also why people are realizing what's going on because it's, you know, Julian's been in there for soon to be four years and he doesn't, he hasn't done anything wrong. He's not, you know, he did everything right. Thank you very much. I was wondering if you could speak about your sense of the engagement that the issue is gaining amongst the younger generations. Do you feel it's, it has a good momentum or do you feel there is some obstacles towards point shedding, gaining their attention of younger generations on the issue? I mean, getting the young people involved and aware is really essential, partly because they're not yet compromised by, you know, career progression and that kind of thing. But I think we're, I think there's a lot more interest now. We're doing a lot more engagement in the UK with universities and I've been doing a few podcasts recently. I did one with Russell Brand, I did one with Jordan Peterson and I'm trying to like bridge different political, you know, approaches because I do think you need a critical mass of people in order to get Julian free and for that you need to really go to the core of it which is left or right, most people agree that truth should not be a crime, that you shouldn't put publishers in prison, that war crimes should be prosecuted and so on. So it's about engaging. I think it's also about finding a discourse of, of unity and of which is, which is very kind of not really very descriptive of our times, right? Everything's so polarized but there are common grounds and these are the most important common grounds and we need to find a dialogue in which we can agree on what the common grounds are. So with the younger generation, of course they weren't necessarily politically aware when we published, you know, evidence of torture and extrajudicial killings and so on. And when you say well it was evidence, torture and extrajudicial killings, it sounds very, very abstract whereas WikiLeaks actually reveals the very concrete with details of dates and times and names and ages and so on. But how do you summarize that? And I think the most effective way has always been to screen as often as possible when you're speaking to people about WikiLeaks, the collateral murder video. Because a collateral murder video really kind of, people get it when they see it. And Julian is, that Julian is charged with the collateral murder publication 40, I think it's 40 years, 30 or 40 years of his, of the charges relate to the collateral murder publication. That's a whole life sentence just in one, in that one publication. And people see it and they're witnessing the slaughter of innocent civilians and, you know, the cold-blooded killing of a man who goes to rescue someone who's, who's critically wounded. So you became, you become a first-hand witness to this war crime and then you understand well actually hold on, these people who committed the war crime, they're free, they're with their children, they've never had to face a courtroom, they've never been, you know, had to face any consequences for these, for these killings. And Julian, who is the reason you're able to witness that, is the one who's in prison. And I think that's the most immediate and, you know, you don't even have to explain it. Because once you're explaining it's kind of, people get it when they see the collateral murder video. You say the people who did this are free. Julian is in prison. What is Julian charged with in the U.S. and can he get a fair trial in the U.S.? I've kind of been rejecting this question recently because, because once you start going into this, into the legal process, you, you buy into the, you're legitimizing it as if it were a legal process. But I can explain. Julian's charged under the U.S. Espionage Act, 17 camps each carries 10 years. And then five years under the Computer Front and the Views Act. The Computer Front and the Views Act charge is just like the PR glazing. It's, it's a completely bogus made up charge. The essence of it is that they claim that Julian, or someone they say was Julian, an anonymous account in an encrypted chat, agreed to try to help Chelsea Manning hide her identity. That's the charge. That's the computer charge. Which is, by the way, complete bogus from a technical perspective. And then the 17 charges, they tried to beef it up later with a, there was a later indictment where they tried to beef up the computer charge by introducing a new star witness, the star witness, so, so called, is a convicted pedophile diagnosed psychopath by, by a court in Iceland who, who later recounted his testimony and said what the U.S. put in their final indictment is bogus and recounted his testimony. So, the 17 charges relate to receiving, possessing, and communicating information to the public. And that information related to the wars in Afghanistan, the wars in Iraq, the Wentenamal Bay Prison Camp, torture camp, the U.S. diplomatic cables, which were all, they're not all different, they're not all printed out there. It's just the secret ones that are printed out, 250,000 of them, which detailed U.S. subversion of the judiciary here in Germany, in Spain, in Italy, in relation to the U.S. CIA rendition flights where people were plucked out of Europe or flown through Europe in order to be tortured in black sites. So, the, the charges, the 170 years under the Espionage Act, concern journalistic activity because everyone, almost people know that the source was Chelsea Money. And the U.S. is trying to construe communication with the source or alleged communicating, alleged communication with the source as a conspiracy to publish. Let me think about it. Just receiving information is a crime, just possessing that information is a crime. Even if you were to take away the actual publication charges that communicate communicating, which are 30 years, you're still left with 140 years for receiving and possessing. Imagine that you haven't published, they could still go after him for 140 years. The case is absolutely beyond absurd and it's kind of North Korea-like when you think about it. As I said, even going into it kind of lends it some kind of credence. There's no, there's no public interest defense in the Espionage Act because you're talking about a piece of legislation from 1917 that was, was very broadly worded, but if you have an Espionage Act, supposedly for Espionage, and that's not what you'll institute yourself in, in relation, like they're not accusing him of Espionage as you usually understand Espionage, but the act is called the Espionage Act. It's very broadly worded so they can repurpose it for whatever mad reason they decide in relation to journalism because it is so vague and broadly worded. So there's no public interest defense. That's to say, if Julian stands trial, he's not able to say, well, you see, I did receive and possess and communicate this information to the public, but I did it because it was a war crime. I did it because it documented the civilian killings of 10 to 15,000 people in Iraq, or I did it because these people deserve justice and so on. You can't argue that because it makes no difference. It makes no difference to whether he's, to, to his defense because you cannot mount a defense. It's kind of automatic. You received it. You possessed it. You communicated it. You're, you're guilty. And no national security defendant has, has ever won a case in that court. And of course, you have the plea bargain system anyway. So look, Julian can't ever receive a fair trial in the US because he's not even a US citizen. Like, what are we even talking about? Is a whole of the world under US jurisdiction? I mean, that's what they want. And that's what the UK is playing along with. But if, if the US is allowed to do that, then there is no, there is no jurisdiction to speak of as far as the press is concerned. There is no press freedom. If the US is able to do this in the UK or in Germany or whatever, then the press is, all the safeguards for the press just fall away. And then Turkey or somewhere else will say, well, that's a very good idea. We should go after, you know, a German journalist publishing in France or Germany or whatever, because, you know, they're, hey, there are no, there are no boundaries anymore. They violated our secrecy laws because we don't like that published in Germany. Let's extradite him or her and put them in prison for the rest of their lives. It's completely absurd. You're on the front line of defending press freedom. How much support did you actually get from, from other news outlets that WikiLeaks collaborated with? Well, by the way, if you have any questions about the Espionage Act, you have an expert here in the front row, Joe Lara, who is very knowledgeable and has written lots of very helpful articles about it. Put your hand up, Joe. There he is. Support from, well, they've done the bare minimum. Like, they're basically on the, on the right side of history in terms of, they've put out an editorial saying this shouldn't be happening and it's an attack on press freedom. But I mean, frankly, they should be doing a lot more. At a minimum, and this is something that someone recently said, at a minimum, they should be putting out a joint statement saying a son should be released and this whole case should be dropped. Like a joint statement from the five original partners. This is like super easy and obvious, especially because they've already said it shouldn't be going on. You know, the problem is, I think there's some shame and embarrassment by some of the publications or, yeah, so they'd rather not put themselves in the spotlight. Especially, well, I won't. The Guardian. Yeah, the Guardian. I mean, the thing is, if the press, especially the ones who were working the most closely in relation to these publications that published the same material that could be prosecuted on the same grounds, if they had behaved any differently, they had actually behaved critically, reporting critically over what's happened, what happened over the past 12 years. From the beginning, I'm convinced that Julian would not have spent a single day in jail, not a single day. And every day that passes is a failure by the press, by those specific publications and doing the right thing. My question goes somehow a bit in the same direction. I just wanted to ask you if you could maybe name some people you got in touch for to get support for your course, but who denied it to you, like relevant people, maybe the President of the European Commission or someone because If the names, Mrs. Astron... It could be that someone wants to send some emails here or do anything like activate himself or herself for supporting you in this thing, like... It's not the best diplomatic approach to get people on board. Because, I mean, it's a bit of a luxury to do that because Julian's fate is in the hands of people actually coming together and doing what they haven't done so far. It's not a good strategy to... for me. But I mean, it's obvious who was in a position to do something about it or to do more about it than they're actually doing. And I know there are people who are calling out those people, but it's much more appealing for people who are in those positions to feel welcome to join and that they will be... They will join the stride without attack. And that's what's needed really is open arms. And once Julian's out, you know, we can dissect things, but I don't think it doesn't matter anymore because then Julian will be out, right? So we have to kind of try to build a positive movement that's not... I know I've done a bit of that. It's a bit difficult. Okay, Stella, this is about the Espionage Act, but I'm sure Joe will be just as curious to know the answer as I am. So there have been some wonderful changes proposed to the Espionage Act by Rashida Talib and Ilan Omar, members of the squad. And so in particular, they try to redefine it and narrow the terms so it's less broad. So there has to be specific intent to harm national security. And also material must have been properly classified, which wouldn't be the case. It couldn't be the case if it were a war crime. So I just wondered if either of those got in contact with the WikiLeaks legal team and if there was any chance that that might relate to Julian's case or is it more likely it relates to Trump's case? Although they're dense. So I just wondered if they had gotten contact with you and if you had any news of where that's going. I have no doubt that any proposed amendment to the Espionage Act has as a backdrop the outrageous abuse of the Espionage Act in Julian's case. That is, this is the most well apart from the Trump. But in terms of press freedom, this is the obvious reference. In terms of the U.S. context, there's, I mean, yeah, I don't want to say too much. Now, one thing I'm distraught by, by you and the whole family, and you can see it in the film, I think, you know, as you say, they don't need to explain too much. It probably takes about a minute to the film's time, actually the details of what it means to press freedom. Really, the sense you get around Julian is there are people with great solidarity and incredible love and resilience and caring for others. And that this tells us so much about who Julian is, which has been lost in the narratives this year that have been thrown up to try to, you know, put him where he is to silence him and stop us knowing what's going on, the criminality. But my question relates to how do you and how does, you know, maybe yourself, but I see John as well, able to keep going in the face of this incredible injustice, which is just, you know, really so profound on a personal and historic front, you know. But how do you keep stride and keep poise? And like you say, it doesn't actually help to sort of be pointing fingers, and although it might be tempting, very tempting, but as you say, it doesn't, it doesn't actually get you what you want, does it? So yeah, how do you, how do you deal with this? I mean, the fighting for Julian part is, is the easy part. You know, I just, there's a lot of interest. And, you know, you just keep pushing and there are a lot of people that want to help, you know, all over the place. And just in terms of, apart from the like any physical limitations, which so far I've managed to dodge them more or less, you know, I get sick now and then and kind of obviously tired today. But the fighting for Julian part is easy because, you know, I just want him to be free. And that's, you don't, you don't need, you don't need any further motivation than that. But it's, you know, it's hard because the hard bit is sometimes you feel like sometimes you're dealing with actual psychopaths, you know, and that's not the majority. I mean, I'm talking, and I'm not really affected by the Twitter, you know, trolls and so on, but they exist, you know, and then that's also like, okay, you're just trying to do, you're just trying to communicate the importance of the case and this kind of thing. But then you're met with some people who are actually extremely just psychologically bizarre. But I mean, I guess that's that's kind of the nature of engaging publicly with the public or with maybe people who are posing as a public right. But I mean, I'm not really that affected by it. Because I've seen the kind of extraordinary vitriol and concerted attacks and planted stories against Julian. I saw that for years. And I mean, it's like, I know what I'm, I know what I'm dealing with, or what Julian's dealing with. So it's, it's kind of, okay, so like the whole CIA operation inside the embassy. Like some people are like, Oh my God, what's it like, you know, finding out that they were trying to steal the DNA of your of your child's nappy and knowing that they were planning to assassinate him and these things. The thing is, I knew, I kind of, I didn't know, like in detail, I didn't have, we didn't have the Spanish whistleblowers, and we didn't have this 7000 word investigation that was published last year. I didn't know that in 2018, or in December 2017. But I could sense it. Like, I could just, you know, that environment was extreme. It was extreme. And it came as, of course they were doing that, because I could feel it, because we could feel it in there. So it's a relief that we can say it, that we can discuss it here today. And imagine those whistleblowers hadn't come out, and that CIA investigation hadn't been published. I would be here saying like, we were in there and it felt like they were going to kill him anytime. You know, and you'd be like, well, she's obviously a little bit affected by the situation, but he can't be like that extreme. Oh, actually, yes. Yeah. So in a way, it's, it's a relief that I can speak to you without feeling like there's a barrier of my reality in yours, because you were actually receptive to my, what I've been through, what we've been through, what Julian's, what's being done to Julian, because over time, these things have been coming out. But the real, the real difficulty was when we were living it. And there was kind of a business as usual. Oh, well, you know, he's just, it's all in his head, the US is firing the UK's behaving normally. He can step out anytime he likes, right? That phrase. And it was like a complete, just like my reality. And what I saw, there was just a complete not even a disconnect. It was like, I saw the, I saw the world through what I could see. Anyway, it's sometimes it feels like Sorry? A cognitive dissonance. Yeah. Yeah, but it's much more than that. Yeah, it's very, very strange, but I don't feel that anymore. So. Hello. And thank you for letting me ask this question. I am interested, for most, if as you could say before, what has happened so far about Locust Operator's proposal of asylum and citizenship so far. I think it has been reiterated a couple of times. And the Presidency of Mexico said they were at least in contact with the legal committee. So what could you tell us whether it's actually feasible or what do you think about the Mexican asylum proposal? Well, these, these, these initiatives are incredibly politically important. Mexico is a major international player, especially for the United States. So, and it's not just a, you know, it's not just a motion. It's a very overt show of support because this is a political case. These kinds of this kind of thing is really significant. I don't want to comment too much on that, but I think it's hugely significant that, that Mexico, that the Mexican President is prepared to do that because he doesn't have to. And that's has a major impact for Julian politically. And there's other, you know, there's other support from other Latin American countries and Lula, if he becomes President again, will obviously be a very heavy weight in the region as well. He's already said Julian should win the Nobel Peace Prize and that he's a political prisoner and so on. He said these things in the past, recent past. I have one eye and many people in this room, including as far from New Zealand and all over, have been with you at this round parliament and we'll come back next day. And I wondered what, and what doctors and if the British media took up this huge manifestation and what kind of, or how did they report on it, be it press, print media or television? There were some reports. I mean, look, yeah, there were some reports with actually the Daily Mail, the mail on Sunday reported 7,000 people. It was a qualitative report. There were several others that took up a wire report that said hundreds of protesters, which is mathematically impossible because you can't surround that area with any less than 5,000 and there were many more. So, you know what, it's just, I just don't, you know, to a degree, I feel like, yeah, we can complain about the media, but how much does it really matter? You have 7,000 people there. You had word of mouth. You had their awareness that it was a success. The impact of that is huge. You had the people watching it. You had the police seeing that actually we set out to do it and we achieved it and more. You have all the media I was able to do in the lead-up to it because those opportunities, the press or podcasts, the Russell Brand one I did, the Pierce Morgan and the few others, they only came up because we were doing the human chain because that was the hook. So, you know, on the day, yeah, they reported, some reported about it, some didn't, or they played it down, but in general, it was okay. It was, you know, it wasn't a total blackout and there's a lot of evidence that we made it. Lots of people were filming and now we can say we, you know, it had never been done before and it was huge, huge achievement. And there was a transport strike. Like, yeah, against all odds, we, you know, exceeded all expectations. So, it's just about building that and the press also follows, you know, the press follows the mood as well. They follow things like political signaling, what do the powerful, you know, interests, where do they lie, not saying they always just side with those, but they're responsive. They have their ear to the ground and having their ear to the ground also means seeing that there's actually a very strong movement for Julian. That has also huge significance and it has, it leads to other things. So, it's not about the media's coverage on the day, although it could have been better. Lots of people don't even look at the media. They don't read newspapers. You know, it's not insignificant, but I mean, I don't think that's not like the main purpose. Mrs. Assange, it's awesome to have you here and thank you for all the work that you do for your, not just for your husband, but for all, our all freedom. Earlier you said you encourage people to send mail to Assange and I wanted to ask you what Assange's favorite mail, like, is it poems or drawings or like, I don't know, nice, nice words and where can we send, like how can we send this to the address of the person and then to his name or that. There's a, there's a website called writejulian.com that has all the instructions about how to write to Julian. Assange, I think most of his mail gets through, although he does, there are bags of mail that but generally I think he gets most of it. What does he like? He likes, sometimes he reads me the letters that he gets, like if he has one that he, I don't know, but I shouldn't try to be prescriptive. If I say he likes this then you're all going to do the same thing. He likes reading interesting articles about things that don't necessarily have to do about, do with his case, you know, science, culture, whatever. Because sometimes, yeah, it's a relief for him to read about other things that are interesting. If you look at the persecution of Julian and try, try to locate the source where it comes from then you come, go to Washington DC to the Department of Justice because they could drop the indictments, the three indictments and the whole story would be over, it would be free. Have you got any assessments, information, rumors or whatever if the Department of Justice might be rethinking the fact that they just took over the point of view of Mike Pompeo, Trump and all these guys, interest of persecuting. Julian liked the Obama administration did not do. Well this case is hugely controversial and that's an opportunity, it was controversial throughout during the Obama administration, during the Trump administration as well, two of the lead prosecutors were taken off the case because they disagreed with the Espionage Act charges. And now during the Biden administration, we know that for a fact that the prosecution itself is controversial within this administration. There's disagreement within the DOJ. So what does it take? I think it takes, it just takes political cover. It takes enough political pressure for there to be a, to get it over the line because I mean staying this course is also difficult for them. So it's about making it more difficult than the opposite. And that's why you need a concerted effort on all fronts. So you have the Australian government now which says that it is trying to do something. I mean the Australian government is I think a very important piece to this. But at the same time you need the press saying well enough is enough, this isn't outrageous, this has gone on for too long, this is almost four years, the case is outrageous, it affects us and so on. You need the public to say we now understand what has been going on and he has to be freed and this is a political prisoner at every level of society. That's what, and you know politicians, they just respond to what they think will get them reelected. That's really quite simple. They're very vulnerable and constantly, they're constantly paranoid about losing their power, right? So it's just making them aware that this is an issue for their own political career. But really I don't think the DOJ needs much convincing. They know what the problems are with this case. But there needs to be enough political pressure for them to be able to say well we reviewed it and actually this was a bad thing from the Trump era. Stella, so right now Julian's applied for the permission to appeal to the High Court which is a weird English thing. You have to ask permission for an appeal. It's not a right given to you. Can you tell us what are the prospects, what comes next in a conservative expectation? What's the risks? Where is this case going? Well the risks are that the UK High Court has no obligation to hear this appeal and they could just say well we're not going to hear it and he's going to get extradited and that could happen technically, by Christmas. And this is the urgency of getting him out. It's because we need to, because there's no timeline that we control and that things could just go catastrophically anytime. I mean every day that Julian's in prison his life is at risk. So we have to get him out like yesterday and that has to be the, you know, but that's why I kind of reject this okay, but otherwise we're trailing after a you know dates of hearings and this kind of thing and that gives you the false illusion that the legal process is legitimate and that we have to somehow track what's going on in the, in the, through the courts whereas what's going through the courts is prolonging his imprisonment and there has to be a completely a political mobilization centered on he should be out yesterday. Out to where? Out to wherever he's safe. Which is, which is well, Julian's a finalist for the Sakharov Prize. You know, if when speaking to those MEPs the other day it's like, you know, that kind of thing gives political protection. Sorry? I mean if Julian is freed. Yeah, of course, you know, he's, he's, there's always a risk but Julian being freed is a huge win. A huge political win. It won't just save his life but it is in itself protective. At the moment they're, they're winning because they've silenced him. They've silenced him for four years, longer, 23rd, sorry, 28th of March, 2018. That's when Ecuador said, you don't speak or we throw you out of the embassy. That was a whole year before he was arrested. The UK authorities have disappeared at me. Can't even go to court because they don't want him photographed going into court. He can't attend his own hearings except through a, a video feed. We're going to take one more question. Alex? Thank you, Stella. I was just wondering is all that's needed or required of the Australian Prime Minister is to just say that we want him home or what's the process and is it as simple as that or it must be much more complicated but what's the chances of that happening? Well basically, yes. I mean the Australian government is a close ally of the US and strategically very significant in geopolitical terms. And what do we know about the previous government? We know that Scott Morrison, the previous Prime Minister, had weekly phone calls with Mike Pompeo, Mike Pompeo who was plotting to assassinate Julian. Here you have a different, you have a different public position from the Australian government and all they need to do is to find a way to unlock it. And it's not like the Australian government is a newbie to these things. Like they got Melinda Taylor out of Libya. They got, I forget the name, the journalist out of Egypt. They're constantly negotiating Kylie Moore Gilbert out of Iran. They're actually quite experienced in this kind of thing. So it should be a lot easier with an ally and Scott Morrison's election was also run with him making these statements about Julian as were other politicians who got elected. So this is actually a promise they've made that they're going to get him out and the Australian press and population has to keep on badgering them that they said they would get him out and he's not out yet. Why is he not out yet? And that just has to keep keep going because of course, you know, Scott Morrison can say, sorry, Scott Morrison, Albanese can say, look, I know we're friends and so on. But you know, I have my own, I have my own political dynamics at home and I, you know, I'm getting a lot of pressure on this Assange issue and like, can you speed it up? You know, but that's they're close. Of course, Australia, Australia has this kind of problem that it has this attitude like it's insignificant. And it's just incredible because and it's a bit like, I mean, I don't want to talk down on the European parliament, but when they were like, well, it's just, you know, it was like I was sitting there and I was thinking, they don't realize how powerful they are. And it's the same with Australia Australia is incredibly influential and important to the US. And if they make it important for them, then they can solve it. And every day that passes that you win is free, is not free is a day that they have failed that promise. And that just has to that just has to keep being, you know, put in front of them constantly. Thank you very much.