PACE hearing on Julian Assange's detention and conviction and their chilling effects on human rights
(youtu.be)
🤜 FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! 🤛
Comments (19)
sorted by:
God bless this man, the biblical Job of journalism. I thank him for his many sacrifices and his influence on my personal awakening.
Obviously he's innocent, but I'm 100% against "human rights"; which is just an excuse to favour the guilty over the innocent or the vermin over the patriot
How human rights are applied are the issue, not the rights themselves.
E.g. someone say... Intentionally shoots and kills a child.
There should be no expectation of rehabilitation for a crime like that and so their human rights should be forfeit and they should be executed when evidence is sufficient for guilt.
Burden of evidence would have to go up alongside stricter penalties, but people would think twice about the crimes if they knew nothing awaits them but death.
Not to sound like an old Wehrmacht soldier, but it comes down to natural law and natural rights. Those are intrinsic. Human rights, civil rights - those are own to interpretation and enforcement (or lack thereof).
Right to exist. To protect and defend. Life. Liberty. Property. Pursuit of happiness.
You violate those of another without cause, you risk having your natural rights snuffed out.
And that is as it should be.
Natural law and natural rights are irrelevant, because it comes down to a moral belief system. Where those rights aren't recognized, they don't exist in the same way any other rights don't exist.
Civil and human rights are down to interpretation, correct -- but are ideally intended to translate that belief of natural rights into something more widely recognizable and enforceable.
So you'd harm the innocent to punish the guilty? That's profoundly immoral and wicked.
Hey I heard a REALLY serious rumor about you... I think I'm gonna report it to the secret police and let them extract a confession out of you. Thankfully they took your advice and accepted a lower standard of evidence.
People like you end up with child SA charges. You're too weirdly aggressively hateful toward pedophiles. You hate them so much you want to torture innocent people (who are uninvolved) over it? That's pretty weird bro, Lol. Also, your unique spelling of "paedo" makes me think you know the differences between the different "philes", which literally indicates you are one.
You can have the last word, I don't talk to people who are likely to touch kids.
Didn't read. Schizo post harder, lol
Not impossible, but this is why the application of human rights is the issue.
This is unspeakably retarded with the massive history of falsely accused being killed only to be vindicated post-death, which is exactly why it IS so hard to execute people today.
What do you do when someone is executed for crimes they don't commit? "Oh, fuck, I'm sorry"? That's not good enough, that's not acceptable.
"We'll do better next time"?
That's raising the bar for evidence.
What strikes me is just how difficult it is for Julian Assange to talk. He seems to have to change state just to do it.
He looks like a computer with too many tasks. When he's not talking, he looks as if he's spending every moment he can healing, a very active rewiring process in his case.
Still, he carefully answers the questions.
One of the more worrying parts: reinterpretation of constitutional rights, abuse of obscure laws to get what you want.
Interestingly: it confirms what Q wrote: infiltration and subversion. Assange's case shows what a dark place this brings us.
All the laws in place, paper, cannot protect unless it is supported by people who are virtuous. And clearly: Kansas/Bill Bar do not belong in that category but belong to the expedient and economic and equity group, who give a damn about fundamental and God given rights, despite their lip-service to scripture. This goes for the many judges and politicians too who favor political expediency and have no backbone, while falling for the STRAUSSIAN: re-imagining human rights as espoused by the WEF high Priest: Klaus Schwab.
It also goes to show there are still people who retain their humanity.
he is innocent, guilty only of bringing to light the fact that laws are "only on paper". The do not work or protect the people they were meant to protect.
is a government allowed to suspend the human rights of individuals for political purposes? an individual causing another individual to be denied their human rights is already a crime. also, what exactly are our human rights?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-01/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-speaks-for-first-time-at-pace/104419388