I am in two minds about Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks: I like a bit of openness, and 'exposing' to the public information which was already available to nearly three million people doesn't seem much to get excited about. Against that he seems a bit of a nutter, and his assertion that there should be no secrets at all seems to stray from the Libertarian to the Anarchist.
But I do have a problem with the extradition procedings. Sweden has very peculiar rape laws, particularly concerning unprotected sex to which otherwise there was consent, which don't exist in Britain. Mr Assange is being extradited for something which is not a crime in the UK.
Suppose that in some exotic African country it was considered an offence against the Deity for a man to appear in public without plucking his eyebrows. An extradition request is received for someone concerning whom irrefutable evidence exists of unplucked eyebrows in that country. Do we extradite the guy - to face life imprisonment in some disease ridden oubliette- or do we say this is a nonsense?
A more realistic example exists in Switzerland. Tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland, it is a matter for the civil courts just as a debt to a private person would be. So the Swiss don't extradite people to other countries who are wantd for tax evasion.
I am just wondering if we shouldn't rethink this.
No comments:
Post a Comment