To me, reading the various restrictions, it seems pretty obvious that they're designed to give them as excuse to kick him out, and the lawsuit is just a way to buy some time.
No, he can participate in Ecuadorian politics all he wants, it merely prohibits him from interfering in other State’s politics; such interference violates international law when conducted from a diplomatic outpost, and Ecuador is obliged by international law to prevent it.
I'm also unclear as to what law you say they're violating. At most, I can see them put in a situation where Britain doesn't respect Assange's diplomatic immunity, and we are well past that point.
Article 41, Sec. 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (and, depending on the degree of responsibility diplomatic staff have in contributing to Assange’s actions, possibly also Sec. 1 of the same article.)
> I can see them put in a situation where Britain doesn't respect Assange's diplomatic immunity,
Assange has never had diplomatic immunity; the issue is Ecuador allowing it's embassy to be used in a manner inconsistent with its diplomatic purpose, which, yes, is well past the point of an individual proposed diplomat being rejected by the receiving state.
From my perspective, it seems an embassy's right to hold a refugee was shown in the Noriega affair. If they are allowed to shelter a refugee without losing their diplomatic rights, I don't see how they can apply diplomatic law to him.
Allowing him to blog per se also not.
Allowing him to blog (and, even moreso materially supporting him in so doing) in a manner directed at influencing the internal politics of the UK, however, is, because such interference (aside from any participation in it being expressly prohibited to protected diplomatic personnel by Sec. 1 of Art. 41) is universally understood in international law to be incompatible with the function of a diplomatic outpost.
By doing so, you are interfering in other State's politics.
Perhaps you should be arrested for this political post.
Is that seriously what you believe? Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech?
This is political speech that we are talking about here. I cannot think of a single thing that is more important to protect than political speech. It is quite literally the most important human right in existence, because if you don't have that right, you lose the rest of them.
Speech directed at interfering in the politics of th receiving country (or, to a lesser extent, third countries), yes.
And it's not just my or ascorbic’s idea, it's fundamental to the entire premise of permitting the special privileges associated with embassies, and incorporated into the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
(Non-diplomatic personnel residing in an embassy for an extended period of time is itself something of a hack not really envisioned by the Convention.)
> Do you not see how absolutely ridiculous it is to criminalize political speech?
Not being allowed to remain in embassy is not a criminal sanction.
This is basically the same exact situation. Just because the US didnt murder the deported asylum seekers, it is still an extreme attack on free speech to deport them, to be murdered by another country, because they criticizing Canada.
More: Assange isn't going to be arrested (by Ecuador). He's going to be kicked out of the embassy if he keeps being politically active. Now it's Assange's choice: Leave the embassy in order to keep being politically active, or stay there and shut up.
That something is factually accurate does not mean it is not published with the purpose of manipulating political outcomes.
Not that everything Assange has done is non-editorialized relay of fact.
> If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador.
Ecuador is merely fulfilling it's obligation under international law; the primary offended party is the UK, here, who is the party that has objected that Ecuador permitting Assange’s political activities directed at the UK and other states violates Ecuador's obligations under international law.
Having diplomatic facilities on the territory of another country is not a right, it is a privileged extended under terms (many of which are standardized in international law.)
>> the primary offended party is the UK
Sorry, I disagree. Primary offended party here is Assange - a victim of powers that be trying to contain him. UK is the primary bully here.
There are legitimate reasons for countries to keep secrets, just as there are legitimate reasons for individuals to keep secrets.
And that’s without one-sided reporting (“Her emails!” “If that’s important, what about his phone?”) or outright falsehoods (I am glad to say I don’t think Assange has done that outside of misrepresenting himself).
"24. Mr. Julian Assange is reminded that, while the Republic of Ecuador recognized as an asylee, shall, when exercising his right of communication and of freedom of expression from the Embassy of Ecuador in London, abide by scrupulously the conventional and customary norms of asylum diplomatic, among others, especially, the prohibition to carry out activities that could be considered as policies and interference in internal affairs from other States, or that may cause harm to the good relations of Ecuador with any other State, whatever form is used to execute said activities"
Original text, in Spanish: https://archive.org/stream/AssangeEmbassyProtocols/Assange%2...
No, he's more like a couchsurfer that wants the legal tenant on whose couch he is staying to provide cleaning services, indefinite rent-free residency, and to allow him to do things that violate the tenant's lease.
But not a squatter, because he has permission, for now.
That's absolute bullshit. Anne Frank was hidden inside an annex of her father's company, BY her father Otto Heinrich Frank, a former German officer decorated during the 1st World War. HE told her how he planned to hide her.
Nothing to do with squatting, and frankly (no pun intended) you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.
No and no. This is the civilian world. An embassy is an outpost of a civilian government. Despite all the spycraft associated with them, they are not military outposts and government cannot conduct military operations from them. They are armed only enough to defend themselves.
He is also definitely not a squatter. He was invited in. Squatters by definition enter without permission.
Where "adverse possession" aka squatter's rights exists, one much stay without the permission of the owner. A potential adverse possession can be avoided by the landowner giving permission. That stops any running clocks as the possession is no longer "adverse" to the rights of the owner.
There is no link to the "memo" in the Reuters article. Maybe it was removed? Might you have the link?
And that’s the evidence that they are trying to kick him out? Suing to challenge these rules certainly won’t help with the government’s good will.