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).
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.