 people in the campaign who do the extraordinary work that you do. You know, in South Africa what brought about liberation was active citizenship, and this campaign is a wonderful example of active citizenship. It's also a great honour for me to speak on a platform with such esteemed people in support of that most revolutionary of things, a truth teller. And particularly, I would like to say what an honour it is to share a platform with Laurie, for it is your courage, your imagination and your humanism to conceive of a better world that is so important at a time when as we listen to those names of people who are suffering because of their commitment to truth, because of their commitment to a better world, we have to ask ourselves, what is going on? How is it possible for these corrupt mediocrities, evil, evil people whose primary and overwhelming concern is their own material well-being, their own political and economic power? How did we get to this point? And how on earth do we get out of it? And I want to talk and forgive me for being slightly personal and slightly anecdotal in doing this. I want to talk about two aspects of why Julian has been treated as he has, because it is of course a tragedy and a travesty of justice that we need to be here at all. Let us remind ourselves that what Julian has revealed in the most powerful way possible in the words, in the writings of the powerful, how they have undertaken illegal invasions, illegal in terms of their own laws, illegal invasions that have led to numerous deaths, to torture, to war crimes. And because he dared to expose the militarism and the arms trade that underpins it, this is a trade that accounts for 40% of all corruption in all global trade. This is a trade that as we sit here tonight ensures that American and British bombs dropped from American and British jets piloted by Saudi Emirati and mercenary pilots is murdering innocent civilians in cold blood in Yemen in our name and using our tax pounds and dollars. And who benefits from this? Who benefits materially and politically? And it's not always as direct as the case of our former Prime Minister Theresa May who as she continued to sell arms into the Yemen conflict, as she gave the go-ahead for bombings in Syria, her husband through the business that he runs which is invested primarily in the very defense companies that were profiting massively from these military outrages. It's not quite as direct as Theresa May and her husband were benefiting, but it's as pernicious and egregious because it is the politicians, their political parties who receive extraordinary sums of money from all of those involved in this deadly trade. The military and intelligence leaders who leave office to get paid in retrospective bribes with huge signing on bonuses of the very defense companies to which they have given contracts while they're supposedly serving in public office. It is the corporate executives who might at one point want to run a good company, but as soon as they realize that when they pay a bribe they receive part of that bribe in what we call the feedback principle. Just as Sir Richard Evans, executive chair of BAE Systems at the time that they paid six billion pounds in bribes on an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, was rewarded with a six and a half million pound apartment in Mayfair in West London, or Margaret Thatcher's son Mark who has paid a 12 million bribe on that same deal. These corporate executives soon are not looking for someone to sell weapons to, they're looking for someone to bribe because that's how they can make the most money. And of course the intermediaries, not the shadowy dodgy arms dealers of Hollywood films, but the besuited multi-billionaire arms dealers who live in the most expensive parts of London, the bankers, the lawyers, the auditors and the consultants, all of whom become incredibly wealthy on the back of this trade in death. And of course all of this is protected by a veil of national security imposed secrecy. The very veil which people like Laurie and Julian and others have been courageous enough to try and pull aside so that we, the citizens of the countries doing these things, can see what our leaders are doing in our name and with our money. But let us also never forget that power and its compliant media will never give up anything willingly. But the only way power concedes is when enough of us, for long enough, struggle against that power to overthrow it. And you know as we sit here tonight wondering whether tomorrow the British justice system will do finally what is legally and morally right in Julian's case or whether it will once again show itself to be the US's corrupt little poodle. As we sit here and imagine the foreboding that Julian must be sitting in his cell with tonight. As we sit here let us commit ourselves to the sort of struggle that hopefully tomorrow but if not tomorrow in another tomorrow will finally set Julian free. And what gives me hope that this will finally happen is because I had the enormous privilege as a white, comfortable, privileged South African to play a very tiny and insignificant role in the struggle against a legalized system of racism, apartheid. And you know at very little inconvenience to myself, at very little inconvenience to myself, I was forced to leave my country, South Africa, in the mid 1980s to avoid serving in the apartheid military. And the night before I was needing to leave the country at somewhat short notice, I drove up to a hill that overlooks Cape Town and I thought to myself, never in my life will I see my homeland again. Because that's what everybody thought, that the strength and power of the apartheid state supported by the British, American and many European governments seemed immovable. If someone had told me at that point that just five years later Nelson Mandela would walk free from 27 years of prison, that four years after that he would be the country's democratically elected president. I would have not just questioned their level of political understanding. I would have questioned their sanity because it seemed an impossible dream. But that is what happened. That is what happened in South Africa and the reason it happened was because the vast majority of South Africans refused to stop the struggle for freedom. They made the country literally ungovernable and with the support of ordinary people in every corner of the world, they forced the banks that had been bankrolling the apartheid state to make it much more expensive for that state to continue its legalized system of racism and oppression. It was done by ordinary people, people like you and I. And South Africa's democracy has not been without massive challenges. For over 360 years of racist oppression, that's hardly surprising. One of those challenges is the way in which military corruption elided from the militarized apartheid state into our young democracy. Just four years after our democracy, the country decided to spend $10 billion on weapons. Weapons that we didn't need, weapons that we have barely used. This was at the time that our President, Tabo Mbeki, told the 6 million South Africans living with HIV or AIDS that we couldn't afford to provide them with the anti-retrovirals they required to stay alive. After the next five years, because of that policy choice, 365,000 South Africans died avoidable deaths. 32,000 babies a year were born HIV positive because we couldn't afford mother-to-child transmission treatment, but we could afford to spend $10 billion on weapons because conservatively the defense companies led by BAE Systems, championed by Tony Blair, paid $350 million in bribes. But you know what? In South Africa's young democracy, where our investigative media puts a country that is supposedly home to the world's oldest parliament to shame on the 11th of April next year, I, along with over 200 other people, will give evidence against former President Jacob Zuma and the French arms company, Thales, who bribed him for that corruption. Today, I live in a country where Tony Blair, one of the most corrupt war criminals on this planet, not just walks free, but every time he opens his mouth, every mainstream newspaper in this country, especially The Guardian, fawn over his every word while an actual truth teller is tonight in jail. So let us remind ourselves that to change our political system, to change the nature of the world that we live in, that benefits not even 1% of the population of this planet. It is up to us and no one else. And so let us say together tonight, and let us say together tomorrow morning. And let us say until Julian is free, justice for Julian. I would like to just remind everybody that it is your taxpayer money that is funding the CPS as Claire Dobbin and James Lewis QC, Claire Dobbin QC and James Lewis QC. And the CPS and the KS Thomas leadership was involved in stitching up a sandwich. Let's make sure that we hold them to account for the things they say in court tomorrow and elsewhere. Let's remind ourselves that the real criminals are George Bush, Tony Blair and their numerous allies across the world, including in Sweden, which wanted to prolong the Afghan war so that they could sell more grip and fighter jets. In Ecuador, where they denied a citizen of asylum without due process. In Australia, where they continue to stay silent on the torture and prosecution of one of their citizens. And in Britain, which facilitates US imperialism. I'd like to remind us, though, on this, you know, against all of this, the wonderful shining example that WikiLeaks brings of security for the documentation, as well as security for the whistleblower, connections with small organizations, for example, in Tunisia and Lebanon and elsewhere in the world, whether in Kenya exposing corruption or sparking the Arab Spring in parts of the world, or indeed in globally relevant articles. So allowing whistleblowers to talk to those who understand their local information, but also those who understand the international information or who are interested in it. Allowing us to have a secure Dropbox facility that is now emulated by many national newspapers and, I believe, over 29 different free speech organizations and whistleblowing support organizations. And of course, all the changes to the global media that have taken place, which has put the global media into the pockets of the oligopolists, and WikiLeaks broke through that and revolutionized journalism by allowing both archival and accuracy. And it still continues to have a 100% accuracy record. These are the things we remember Julian for, not what they smear him with. And one of the important things about these free-the-truth events is that we have these brilliant speakers and I'm very grateful for them for their time, but this is also about us in the audience talking to them and asking them questions and inspiring them to do other things and inspiring ourselves to go on and set up new things and different things. So before I throw the floor open for questions and we will take as many questions as we can. I know some of our speakers will leave in a bit, but we will try and answer all questions. Could I just ask, Emmy wants to pass on some information about various actions. Thank you very much for a wonderful panel discussion, Deepa. We're very grateful and proud to support your actions. And thanks to our lovely guests there, all of them, particularly Larry for his courage because he has suffered through all of this. All of us will be at the court, I expect, tomorrow. So very, very grateful for everyone turning up. One of the things we can do as people, members of the public, is sign petitions and as I was on the 11th of August inside the court, I looked at the judges and I found they are human like you and I and I thought looked around for representatives of the public and there was none. There was no jury in these proceedings. This is a point that is extremely important and one that we have to revisit in the future for extradition cases. I have here a petition I'd like to quickly read and I would please ask you to put your names at the exit on that piece of paper. I'll read it quickly. To the judges presiding over U.S. versus Julian Assange, you have in front of you the case U.S. versus Julian Assange, the publisher of media organization WikiLeaks. The way this case has reached you, you are asked to deliberate on narrow aspects of the law without looking at the broader picture of the consequences of your decision. You're obliged to look at the law and the evidence impartially and deliberate fulfilling your duty to society and the public. In fact, the decisions you are making, you're not making in your name, but on behalf of society, since it is our society that has institutionalized the function of your role. Your decisions are a legal expression of the culture we share as it evolves through the centuries of our nation's existence. As members of this society, as members of the public, we hold no role and function in the proceedings before you, since there is no jury established and institutionalized in court proceedings today. We have no role or function as members of society today, other than sit in the public gallery and come outside the court, raising our voices to be heard loud and clear, expressing our view that the prosecution of Julian Assange is not in the public interest and he should be freed by this court. Yet, we are part of the fabric that supports your function. We fund the building and upkeep of such fine buildings. Our tax sustains you and your families. We support the good functioning of the royal courts by keeping outside of the social contract to adhere to its decisions collectively. In that capacity, which precedes you, do not put upon us collectively the responsibility for Julian Assange's intellectual and physical demise. We do not want his blood on our hands as a society. Through his publishing work with WikiLeaks, Julian Assange propagates society's progress through learning and increased understanding of a human condition, how the world works, how our public life really functions, fundamentally supporting the pillars of our democratic system. His work gives the opportunity for enlightenment desperately needed for people in our society. His work shines a light where we fail. As a society, we fail as a society and these failures have dramatic consequences on people's lives abroad and at home. This is why the prosecution of Julian Assange is not in the public interest. Your decision on the case before you will determine what direction our society takes for the future. Choose enlightenment and not darkness. Generations before us have given their intellectual input, hard work, sweat, and even their lives to reach the state we live now without the fear of arbitrary violence unleashed upon us as a society on a massive scale. Yet, following the case of Julian Assange, the threat of losing this is evident. Our intelligence services, our police, our governments stood silent or were complicit as foreign actors planned the kidnap and murder of someone who lived among us. Julian Assange is one of us. His prosecution is not in the public interest. The progress of this country has achieved is priceless. To all of us who live here, let our progress continue. Do not choose our intellectual and moral decline. How can it be that our society, through our institutions, can reject the fundamental humanistic values of enlightenment that Julian Assange's work with WikiLeaks represents? Public opinion agrees. The prosecution of Julian Assange is not in the public interest. No jury would send him to America to face his tormentors. In times when our society is tested, we find out who we truly are, how far we have reached as a society morally. This is such a moment. Do us proud. Our society looks to you. The whole world looks to us collectively. Do us proud and let us cheer to your decision. Don't make us hang our heads in shame of what we have become. The prosecution of Julian Assange is not in the public interest. Release him. Please sign the petition at the exit. Thank you. I'd now like to invite questions from the audience because I'm not sure about whether the roving mic will work with everybody. Could I ask people to either come forward or say their question from their space if they would prefer to? And then we can... Oh, there is a roving mic. Excellent. Thank you. But could I ask you to prioritise your questions to Chris Williamson? May I ask you to prioritise your questions for Chris Williamson because Chris has a train right away. So, Calvin, spare us one second. Hi, man. This country is being led by the most corrupt, cronyism-led government of my lifetime. The judicial system in this country is a joke. The charges that Julian Assange faced are farcical. They are an absolute joke. How he has been held captive in Belmarsh this long is a joke. As most of you know here, I am a whistleblower. The question to Chris, if you had the say-so today, would you defund FTAC? Would you revitalise the judicial system that this country has? Because what I see is an absolute joke and one other thing. I've also been held captive. I was held for 18 days. They tried to lock me up for the rest of my life with charges of alleged threats to kill Boris Johnson and FTAC claim that I had ideas of grandeur because they claim that I was not a whistleblower. So on that basis, I say the judicial system is an absolute joke. Would you change that? Hi. Hello. Can you hear me? This is a question for Chris. Some months ago, two or three months ago, a letter was taken signed by 24 signatories from the British Parliament, cross-party. Four people. Sorry, is there a problem? Oh, I need to speak. Oh, OK. All right. This letter was taken to Belmarsh. Many of us here in the room were there and saw that letter being presented or initially looked as though the governor of Belmarsh was not going to accept the letter from our elected MPs. My question is, given your knowledge of how Parliament works, what happens to such an initiative? It seems to have disappeared. It was a request to have a video meeting with Julian Assange. And I would have thought that the people who signed that would now be putting pressure for that to actually happen, but it seems to have disappeared. So how does the Parliamentary Mechanism work in that respect? How do they keep pushing for something that they want to have happen like that? My question is to Chris. My question is to Chris Williams. Sorry, my question is to Chris Williams. OK, we all know the issue is exposing what Julian has done. But is it also the fact that the exposure was to do with Iraqis and had it been some other country or other nationals, the overall, the judiciary, the politician, the view or the attitude would have been different, more sympathetic. That means Iraqis, million Iraqis or whoever were killed. So what are we talking about? It's just Iraqis, isn't it? I mean, I think, well, apologies. I've got to leave to get a train. So I've got to get down to the station for two minutes past nine. I mean, I think just in general, to respond to all of those questions, I mean, our system isn't working. Parliament doesn't work. Our representative democracy is broken. The problem we've got is that our representatives on both sides of the chamber are not representing us. They're representing the 1%. And until we break this political duopoly, then it will remain that way. So I think my call to all of you today and everybody who's watching is that we have to band together in order to demand a different type of system. We need to break our representative democracy and replace it with something better. We need to replace it, in my opinion, with a participatory model of democracy. And yes, our judiciary is not working. The system that the comrade mentioned at the beginning isn't working. It's actually penalizing people, treating people appallingly. Parliament's not working, but keep the pressure up. Create pressuring, that's all we can do. But in the meantime, until such time as we do find a way of finding common cause with each other, then this system's going to continue. And let's remember the British Empire was the most successful empire in the world in their past masters, the establishment, at divide and rule. And we have to break through that. Instead of falling out with each other and people on the left and people on progressive politics are very good at that, finding things that we disagree with each other about, let's actually focus on the real enemy. And the real enemy, of course, is the elites in society. It's corporate capitalism, it's neoliberalism, it's imperialism. And we have, Joe Cox made this point, there's more that unites us and divides us. Keep that in mind. Keep that in the forefront of everything that we do. And as I say, rather than finding those areas that we disagree with each other about, and there will be areas, there will be nuances, of course there will. But let's remember that we need to keep our eyes on the prize. And the eyes on the prize is building a decent society, a better society, a good society. And of course it's possible to do. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world. There's no need for anybody to be living in poverty. And there's certainly no justification for the imperialist wars that we've been engaging. Support the work of Andrew here, for example, who's doing some brilliant work on exposing the arms trade. It's crucially important that we do from here, all of us, because all of us in this room are opinion-formers. Let's go out and raise political consciousness because I'm absolutely convinced that when people are armed with the information, they will not tolerate this totally broken and unjust system. Solidarity comrades, apologies I've got to leave. Thank you, Chris. May I invite some more questions from the audience and you're now welcome to ask questions of any of the speakers. So, any questions? Yes, please. And could I just request that we will have to close up in about 10 or 15 minutes. So if we can keep questions short, we might get more in. Thank you. And if you could just project because that mic is only for the streaming. So it doesn't, we can't always hear you. The question I think for Andrew is I'm particularly unhappy with the way these court proceedings against Julian Assange have proceeded. And I think really the need to be a way that we hold these judges to account. Because what's happened, what's happened, we've had this superseding indictment introduced halfway through the case. So it's completely unacceptable. Should be thrown out. And we've got another hearing going on where we know the key witness has lied. It's just that this is farcical. And I think these judges need to know that they're gonna be repercussions. If they go on with this, they are committing a crime. They are actually criminal. And it's just like, they're not. Judges are supposed to implement justice. And then they're frauds. This is fraudulent. How could we best hold these people to account? And so in a positive way, so that people don't follow their example in the future. So we don't have judges doing this kind of thing in future cases. That's my question. Thank you very much. Well said, Comrade. We'll come back to Andrew for that question. Could I take a couple more? Yes, Eric, please. Eric, of course, has been seen outside Belmarsh prison and elsewhere. And it's wonderful to have someone who's leading the way, irrespective of the weather and irrespective of how things are. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, I can't. Okay. As we know, the crime court judge, Vanessa Breitzer, said, Julian should not be extradited. And of course she gave a reason, which I think none of us would like, although we were glad when she said, should not be arrested. But she said, because he will be able to circumvent, which means to get around and his suicide prevention measures of the United States. I think one can question that. It seems to me they watch you every minute of the day. But anyway, she said that. But then she said something else, which I didn't know until now, that Julian had to remain in jail until the appeal of the appeal of the United States as we know in September, we're in October now, careful, in September. So the United States said, yes, they wanted to have him extradited, you see. But there was a decision, unofficially. Officially they said, we will decide in October, which is now, okay? Now, we can't predict what they might say tomorrow and the day after. But having already reserved what is I think a dubious right to say, we will decide in October, what is to prevent them tomorrow, the day after, because it's 28, it's two days, okay? What is to prevent them from saying, again, we will not give our answers to whether or not she begs it out or not. We'll do that in December. And then in December, they can say the same thing, we'll do that in Easter. Easter the same. And he goes endlessly. Over a year ago, a medical team examined Julian Assange and said he was an urgent care of medical treatment in a proper teaching hospital. They said this, okay? There was a prognosis. We're talking about science, you see. We're not talking about speculation, okay? So we have to say that if the decision is, we hope it isn't, of course, but if it is that we won't give an answer now, we'll give an answer in December, not only does this go against a demand, you've heard this out for many times, there's only one decision, no extradition. We didn't say there's a second possibility. The second is that they would not give an answer. We didn't say that. We'll wind up because I have to take one more question. I don't know. I mean, you know, it's so obscure, you know. But anyway, as far as we know, when they made that promise, they gave their word, they would tell us in October, then they should tell us. They can't say, they're gonna tell you in December, December, January and all that. Okay, so this is important. We should say that, and we should insist on it. If you don't mind, we stop. Unless they give an answer to that. Thank you. In terms of responding to the issue of holding judges to account, you know, in any struggle, you have to do things in parallel. The reality is the way we look at the global arms trade is that the only thing that is going to bring real profound change to the nature of the arms trade and the militarism that informs it is profound political and economic change in the way we're governed, in the way our economies are structured. And I'm not convinced that that's going to happen in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean that one shouldn't struggle towards it. At the same time and in parallel, one has to deal with the situation as one finds it in the here and now. So in dealing with the global arms trade, one can't ignore what is happening in Yemen today and trying to mobilize specifically around trying to stop the murder of innocent civilians by our governments. And it's a similar issue when it comes to the judiciary and to what we're seeing in the case of Julian. So the first very important thing to bear in mind is that there are many things we can do in the here and now. There have been complaints that have been lodged. So misconduct in public office complaints have been lodged in relation to judges, Taylor, Snow, and Arbathna. Those have been made. They are on the JADC website. They need to be supported. So every one of us needs to look at that website and needs to ensure that as many other people as possible see those complaints and support them. Then we've got to look at the antiquated system of justice in this country. In South Africa, which as I said, is by no means a perfect democracy, 27 years into its democracy. At least there is a public process in which public representatives ask questions of potential judges. And the judges have to respond, and every South African has access to those hearings on television and or radio, which in rural areas is used far more than television. Now, I'm not saying the South African judicial system or the South African judiciary is perfect, but when I look at the way in which South Africa's constitutional court, with a very progressive constitution, let's say, has held the state to account, regardless of who constitutes that state. I actually think the United Kingdom could learn a great deal from it. So I think there are processes that could be brought to bear that would make the appointment of judges a more open, a more public, a more participatory process. But then, of course, the laws that judges are supposed to rule on are themselves very problematic. And we've heard how there are adjustments made to laws because of political developments, because of military developments like the so-called war on terror, et cetera, et cetera. And that comes back to what Chris was raising about the nature of our representative democracy. And I think, you know, there are many political analysts and thinkers around the world today who would say that the form of liberal democracy that is currently practiced in those countries where we live in liberal democracies is failing the vast majority of people in those countries. And I think we experience that in the reality that this, the sixth or seventh richest country in the world, has more food bank use than at any time since the Second World War. Now, you know, the reality is our system of government and economics is failing if that's the case at a very basic test. So clearly those who are being elected in our democracy, which, like the United States of America, is the best democracy money can buy. And let's not forget that. Those are the words of Greg Pallas, the American journalist. I mean, I am represented by Sir Keir Starmer. Now, you know, the reality is that as a constituency MP, before he became leader of the opposition, he was appalling. He has no politics. He has no principles. He has no ethics. He's a charisma-free zone. And he is remarkably divisive within his own party, within his own constituency. And when we tried to tell the broader Labour Party that, they still went ahead and elected them the leader. And everything we knew about him has come to pass. And I do wonder whether he is the most inept and abject leader of the opposition or leader of the Labour Party it has ever seen. So, we've got to look at our political systems but that's a big task. That is a long and a profound struggle and we have to engage in it. But at the same time, we've got to do the things we can do now. So, I would say to you, when we go home from here, let's all look at the JADC website. Let's look at that complaint and let's support it so something can start happening in the here and now. For the final comment of tonight, I realise there are a few other people who have raised their hands and we'll try and take you but because we are live streaming this and we have the room until a certain time I'm going to invite Lowry to make some comments but as long as the speakers are willing and if you're willing and as long as they don't chuck us out you can stay and ask a couple of questions but we will stop the live stream once this final comment is given. So, there are a lot of very good questions there. I took from them a few points really and I just add to and enrich what was just said. The main issue seems to be that we are banging our heads against the wall that the mechanisms that are given to us or suggested to us to seek address, to seek accountability and to agitate for justice do not appear to work and that's not accidentally, it's because they are designed to give the illusion that they work but actually they fritter away the will and the energy of people that attempt to use them and so the question that was asked so poignantly what do we do next, what do we do next when the petitions are not heard when the calls to our elective representatives for very reasonable requests are not met and the answer was given by my comrade Andrew Feinstein here that you do things in parallel or to use the phrase of the revolutionaries in the United States in the 60s the Black Panther Party you wield dual power and how you wield dual power is when an institution is not serving your needs then you build alongside that a parallel institution that does serve those needs so when there are people who are not represented by their members of parliament because the members of parliament care for the rich and the corporations and those people gather at the food banks in their hundreds then you go to those food banks and you help feed the hungry and you help give succor to the people that have no hope and to slightly adapt to the suggestion of some of my American anti-fascist anarchist comrades you arm the homeless not with rifles or pistols but you arm them with the ability to know and understand how these systems work and how that they can build strength through a mass movement and you form a mass movement through providing mutual aid that is something that we have had the opportunity to do in this pandemic in this test of our collective character when people have been struggling and people still struggle even though we are pretending that all is back to normal that we have the ability to work within our communities to organise and to offer when one has something spare and another has a need for it or when one has time and emotional energy and another is lonely and feeling isolated you go out and do those things and while you are doing those things you have the conversation and you build institutions and organisations that work in parallel these can be political these can be organisations you do not have to go do things through the ballot box most of the real political struggles that have been won in this country and around the world have not been won at the debating between accepted candidates that get through the filtration process of the organised political parties there have been won in the streets through mass movements we only have to look back to the poll tax or anything that has been successfully resisted in this country and it happens when enough people get together and say no more here we stand we can do no other and we will stop and obstruct this system and we will put our bodies against the gears and the levers and the machine will be made to stop Thank you Lauri I am being given a very clear sign that we will have to leave the hall very shortly so please may I request you all to remember the buckets because that will pay for some of our speakers' travel and the higher of the hall and thank you all for being here and thank you to those of us those of you who streamed online all the different activist groups and news organisations that are streaming and political organisations that are streaming we are very grateful to you for your solidarity and see you all tomorrow morning outside the courts Thank you