translated from Spanish: What resemblance there is between the Assange case and call ‘ law gags “Chilean?

Many have been the reactions after the image that turned around the world a week ago, when a bearded and esp daring Julian Assange was dragged between dozens of police officers to a vehicle of Scotland Yard in the British heart.
Thursday, April 11, the founder of Wikileaks was expelled from the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he was isolated from 2012, for claims of Justice of Sweden (for alleged sexual offences) and by courts in the United States.
The controversial arrest of Assange opened a discussion of various edges; among which are, the decision of the current President of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, to withdraw the asylum – which contravenes the international tradition and the politics of the Uribe, Rafael Correa, who supported his campaign-; any violations of human rights and due process that risks the Communicator to be extradited to the United States; but above all, the discussion about the risk that involves this fact for freedom of the press.
In Chile, as often happens, the debate always is somewhat more dispassionate and less deep, but to some extent put on the table the question by the permissions associated with the expression. That Yes, silent those who tear garments in these matters when they talk about Venezuela or Cuba, and unlike other international conflicts, it was not subject to comment to members of the Government.  As it is often the case here, the poor relation of the discussion was the real underlying problem: how much this event affects the human right to communication and free expression and, thus, the democracies of the world.
Let us make a brief historical review regarding a bruited discussion that if won covers in Chile and Yes aroused interest in the polity of the time. Just three years ago, in 2016, Senators of the Republic and the Prosecutor Jorge Abbott designed signs to the so-called “anti crime agenda” that aimed to punish with imprisonment to which “violates the rules on secret” within the framework of research judicial.
The call ‘ law gags “caused deep rejection among social and related organizations constituting a threat to freedom of expression, an affectation to the journalistic profession and a silencing of the flow of information, seeking to reveal cases of corruption, affecting the right of citizens to be informed.  Product of social pressure, challenged indication was not approved, but it is interesting to wonder: what like is there with the Assange case?

We are part. After the founding of the Wikileaks site in 2006, began a path of publications that came from filtering information of public interest, reaching its climax in 2010 with greater filtration known in the history of the world. Were then published the so-called “records of la Guerra de Iraq”, containing 400 thousand documents about the war in that country; so-called “newspapers of Afghanistan”, with 90,000 written on military actions of the USA in Afghanistan; 800 materials from the US prison of Guantanamo in Cuba, and the so-called “Cablegate”, with more than 250,000 diplomatic cables to the United States from their embassies in more than 90 countries, which include several from Latin America.
As you know, the publications showed human rights violations: the filtration on Iraq illustrated images of U.S. soldiers firing on civilians in Baghdad, including two journalists from the Reuters Agency. It was that same year that the U.S. Government opened step research of large jury about Wikileaks, with regard to the publication of classified documents of the former soldier Chelsea Manning, accusing Assange of “conspiring to commit computer intrusion”, or help the informant to obtain classified files to download documents of public interest by protecting their anonymity. For this fee, Assange could face a sentence of up to five years in prison in the United States, while Chelsea was arrested that same 2010 and pardoned in 2017 by President Barack Obama.
Let’s go back to the previous question what resemblance there is between the Assange case and call ‘ law gags “Chilean? First, in both cases seeks to criminalise the leakage of information or “whistleblowing”, even when this is used to disclose information of public interest, even global. Second, in both cases threatened with the penalty or even criminalizing the informant and who helps you make public such information, putting into question even their right to anonymity.
What would have happened if those who leaked information about cases of corruption such as SQM, Indap, Corpesca, Mop-Gate or even crimes against humanity during the dictatorship had been persecuted, criminalized?, do know the irregularities are associated with these materials?, would have operated an effect of intimidation among journalists and whistleblowers? It is exactly here where is the key to the issue. The Faculty of complaint or “leak” when it reveals information of public interest, is an essential tool not only for the development of investigative journalism; but also for the individual right of expression of all that / the citizen/or deemed necessary to disclose documents, material or activities corrupt, unethical, illegal or which violate democracy or human rights. It is also an expression of collective guarantee, which belongs to all citizens and supported their right to be informed of all that content that is relevant.
In that sense, the filtration as a tool is validated by the ethical discussion, as the significance of the revealed contents and is based on the right to freedom of expression and access to information in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of the rights Human rights, widely picked up by the Inter-American tradition. While the complainant or “informant”, it is specially protected in any kind of retaliatory legal terms.
Therefore, the arrest of Julian Assange is not a trivial matter. Rather, it means a scary fact for those who defend human rights associated with the expression and communication. Starting today, United States accompanied by related countries to its policy – like today are England or Ecuador, among others – can pursue public and legally, under the figure of “conspiring to commit computer intrusion” (or other ad hoc constructs), even when It means to exclude global citizenship know contents, information, materials or research that reveal human rights violations or attacks to the democracies of the world.
In this last, both sources complainants and/or filtrants, safety of journalists and/or communicators are at risk. This may mark a dangerous precedent and have irreversible effects on the development of the research and the publication of information of public interest. I.e., a threat to the right to communication, information and freedom of expression and press, all over the world.

Poured in this op-ed content is the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial line nor the counter position.

Original source in Spanish

Related Posts

Add Comment