Tag Archives: Assange

Ecuador and Assange – The straw that’s breaking the global camel’s back?

Standard

At the time of his appeal to the UK Supreme Court, I blogged about the impact its decision would have upon the collective:

“The death-dealers need to realise that the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Julian Assange has little to do with legalities anymore, even if it might appear that way. It is about which path the Heart-Energy takes now. In much the same way as Anonymous is an idea not an individual, so what is occurring around Assange and Manning is an emotion triggered by an absence of honest truth – the instinct to do what is in harmony with the planet. Death-dealers may think they can ‘take out’ these individuals, but you can’t kill the Spirit and every time you try, the Spirit grows stronger and becomes more powerful. She can’t be evaded or avoided because this Spirit resides in everything we are and everything we see around us. If Julian Assange is being judged for his choices so, too, will you be judged and the consequence of all our collective choices is in manifestation now. I don’t know how this will happen but happen it will because the Assange River has just flowed into the Heart-Spirit Ocean and no human thing will be able halt the tides of change.”

 

As events have unfolded, the essence of my intuition has proven accurate in some profoundly unexpected ways. At the time of writing this, Julian Assange has become a citizen of Ecuador having successfully sought diplomatic asylum in their UK embassy. The Latin-American country took a close look at his case and concluded that there was something very wrong in the way the laws were being applied to the whistleblower. The subsequent and extremely undiplomatic actions of the UK Foreign Office have more than demonstrated that the countries involved have a case to answer and that Ecuador has been largely correct in its view about the human rights issues involved. The US, UK and Sweden have been playing fast and loose with their own laws in ways that are now apparent to anyone who is willing to look and we are at the stage where some countries, particularly in Latin-America, are taking collective steps to put the issues involved onto the international agenda.

At the same time, Assange’s actions in seeking asylum have opened the global Pandora’s Box concerning the gender politics around rape. To be clear, Assange has not been charged with any crime. There are questions to answer and he has made it clear that he is willing to be interviewed but not in Sweden because he fears extradition to the USA on unrelated matters. The allegations of sexual misconduct fall into deeply unclear categories as far as the patriarchal mind is concerned. Regarding the man himself, I find myself profoundly ambivalent. I have a deep personal antipathy towards cults of personality that apparently exonerate bad behaviour because the individual has done something elsewhere for benefit of the collective. In my own mind, this applies to everyone not just Assange. Nevertheless, if potentially criminal behaviour is to be subject to examination, that individual has the legal human right to be treated fairly. Sweden, whose record on women’s rights falls far short of equality under law, has some very serious questions to answer in its handling of the allegations against Assange. Whilst publicly denying it, the US has been shown to have prepared secret charges against him created in equally secret courts which, potentially, could result in life imprisonment or execution whilst publicly denying this.  The UK has been exposed as willing to arbitrarily tear up international diplomatic agreements in this global witch-hunt against a single individual. In short, all three countries have been found blameworthy of manipulating facts to the point of downright lies. Anyone caught lying in such situations can be reasonably regarded as unreliable and their evidence untrustworthy. In the circumstances, Assange’s right to a fair investigation – let alone a fair trial – seems to have disappeared altogether and we find ourselves in a global battle between truth, lies and the law.

In my earlier blog, I’d described the case as the Assange River which had now become part of the Heart-Spirit Ocean and this has clearly proven to be true because it has torn open the gender politics of rape on a global scale. As a woman, some of the rape-dismissive comments made by Assange supporters have been truly terrifying. Apparently some men think their desires are justifiable regardless of whether the woman consents or is capable of consenting. If Assange is guilty of such behaviour, he is certainly not alone in his attitude. In such minds, women become a commodity where a man can freely help himself and the levels of astonishment that we might actually object to being treated that way is, in my opinion, obscene. The polarisation of attitudes in the case has become as vicious as the pursuit of the man involved. Some Assange supporters dismiss the women’s claims as unimportant or a diversionary tactic. Others have accused anyone wishing to explore these issues as a ‘rape apologist’. Both viewpoints try to impose simplistic solutions on a highly complex problem and neither contributes to humane, let alone legal, solutions. The world finds itself caught up in some very deep and destructive tides.

As a woman, the debate about what constitutes rape has been highly educational. The subtleties of the Assange case have made me realise that, under these emerging definitions, I am amongst those who have been raped in the past and I have certainly been subject to violence for my refusal to consent to sex. I didn’t report it, as many women don’t, because in practice the UK legal system fails to recognise such nuances. It is highly unlikely that my experience would have ever been taken seriously, let alone seen charges or the inside of a courtroom because these only manifest if prosecutors think there is a chance of winning. UK statistics concerning rape cases tell the sadly all-too-familiar stories about what happens to victims who do pursue much clearer cases through the courts. I don’t know anything about the Swedish legal system but I know the country doesn’t do well on a woman’s property rights, so I am inclined to be cynical about the motives in pursuing Assange purely on the basis of these allegations. I am not questioning the complaints of the women involved or their right to have their experience examined under law but I do wonder if their stories would have been given as much attention had the perpetrator not been Julian Assange.

In the global pursuit of the man himself, the governments involved have now made it clear that the subtleties and nuances involved do matter when it comes to the meaning of consent and the ability to consent. According to this interesting about-face, Assange must be prosecuted (anyone who thinks I am mistaken about this is invited to consider the likelihood of Sweden interviewing him and determining that there is no case to answer). So regardless of the case itself, I am deeply grateful to the women involved for bringing these subtleties to the international stage because their complaint has expanded the issue into other important principles.

For example, the US complaint against Assange is that he released previously secret information without their consent. They had said ‘No’. One might feel sorry for the US had its own past behaviour clearly demonstrated it’s tendency to override the democratic ‘No’ of many other countries. As a serial rapist of the democratic process, the US has been found guilty on numerous occasions. Under the auspices of the International Declaration on Human Rights, the USA could be regarded not only as a serial rapist but also a highly unrepentant one at that. The actions authorised by the UK government for invading the Ecuadorian Embassy in order to recapture Assange clearly manifest an intention to override the international diplomatic ‘No’ against the country involved. Transferred the realm of sexual politics, this could certainly be regarded as conspiracy to rape. The questions arising from Sweden’s actions and Australia’s inaction point to the possibility that they could be accessories to the rape of international law. Truly, this is the Heart-Spirit Ocean of global morality and the tsunami of Assange is laying bare a criminal level of intent by those who deem themselves to be international upholders of the law. As far as I can see, the only thing apparently being upheld by the US, UK and Sweden is the lawlessness of rapist mentality and their public statements of denial sound like every rapist who has ever been publicly accused of that crime.

The case of Assange stretches from the personal, between the man and these two women, to the international and criminal abuses of power inflicted upon the world by unlawful attitudes that turn people, and especially women, into commodities. It highlights prevailing male attitudes towards the accessibility of women’s bodies regardless of our consent. Transferred to the international arena, it highlights some ‘first-world’ attitudes regarding the accessibility of ‘third world’ countries, equally without their consent.

Had it not been for the evidence produced by Wikileaks and other activists in raising our collective awareness of the true nature of this so-called ‘diplomacy’, the chances of Assange and Ecuador being ‘raped’ by this mindset probably would have been very high indeed.  We can be grateful to the global attention created by outcry from both extremes of the Assange polarity that prevented this additional outrage from occurring. But supposing the world hadn’t been watching? In my own mind, I can almost hear these ‘diplomatic rapists’ saying to their victims that they could protest all they wanted to, no-one was going to believe them.

In all the reports I’ve heard about the case against Assange, I have yet to hear him accused of that.

The Judgment of Assange

Standard

At the time of writing this, in just under an hour’s time the Supreme Court of the UK will ‘hand down’ its decision in the extradition case of Julian Assange. Whichever way the decision goes, it will have a global impact because it will inform the choices of all those watching as well as all those who are not.

Although the decision has already been made by the judges involved, the public declaration is going to collapse much potential into an energy that will function globally. It actually doesn’t matter which way the decision goes, those energies are poised for action regardless.

In very many ways, the Judgment of Assange – and the Judgment of Bradley Manning – will confirm for people across the planet of the type of ‘world’ we live in. Much potential has already collapsed into energy already – this is simply another step in a process that began a long time ago in the heart of Julian Assange. If there ever was an example of the Butterfly Effect within the collective human psyche, this is it and it began with a moment just like this.

At some point in his past, Julian Assange, and all those like him, faced a choice. It probably seemed like a very small choice at the time but it will have been as pivotal as this moment now. The choice impacted on the essence of the man. It will have asked him to choose between what he truly believed in and what the world was demanding of him at the time. There will have been no way that Julian will have known what the consequences of that decision would be. The Julian, and the Bradley, who made that choice were not the men they are now. They would not have been famous or celebrities – they would have been ordinary men making what seemed to them to be an important decision about something their hearts felt strongly about. In making that initial choice and in continuing to hold to it, they collapsed a potential into a bubbling spring of energy which subsequently grown into a great river. Others, faced with their own personal human heart-choice, have chosen to link into the obscure Judgment of Assange all those years ago, whether they were aware of it or not. The flapping of the wings of a Swedish Butterfly has resulted in a storm the likes of which the world has not seen before.

Every judgment we make tells the universe a very great deal about us. Every choice of the heart we act upon impacts on the collective energy of the world because when we make such a choice we take the first step in a Dance. Some of us choose the ‘Dance of Life-Death-Life’; some don’t choose at all (which is still a choice); and some choose the ‘Dance of Death-for-Others’.

Once we have made our decision, life has a tendency to test us to find out whether we really mean it. Our heart-choices cease to be based on that first, single decision but upon that decision made over and over again. It stops being a choice and becomes who we are. There will have come a moment for Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and all those like them when, normally sitting alone in a prison or police cell, we wonder whether we could or would have done anything differently and the answer we find in ourselves is “No”. We have become our choice. We are living our choice and we are face to face with those who have decided we should ‘die’ for our choice in one way or another.

Julian, Bradley and all those imprisoned for their decision to choose the Dance of Life-Death-Life are facing down all those who choose the ‘Dance of Death-For-Others’. This is the pivotal difference between the two Dances. Those who choose the Dance of Life-Death-Life will have come to understand, at some point, that they might have to die in order to honour the decision of their heart. It’s not something that we consider in the moment of our first time of choosing, it’s a realisation that comes as a result of the consequences. If the individual hasn’t realised this before, sitting alone in a prison cell will certainly bring it home. I know because I’ve been there.

When the heart-choices of individual people results in imprisonment, we begin to find out what we are made of because we are directly encountering those who are not made of the same stuff. We will discover – sometimes to our astonishment – that there really are those who choose the Dance of Death-for-Others and we have had our cards marked by them because they intend to kill our energy in some way or another. It is an ancient archetype of a dance and the steps are already known.

Those who choose the Dance-of-Death-for-Others, rather than the Dance of Life-Death-Life, will lose because they are dancing with those who realise they are willing to die because they choose Life. The planet Herself chooses the Dance of Life-Death-Life. Whilst death belongs, it is not the end of the story. Those who choose Death-for-Others continue to fail to understand this, even though the lesson has been taught many times over. In living memory, it has been taught by the likes of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jnr, Gandhi and others like them. It is taught by Obi Wan Kenobi in the film ‘Star Wars’.

When the Dance of Death-of-Others chooses to kill, they create overwhelming evidence of intent to murder, whether the target dies at their hands or not. With the likes of the Assanges and Mannings of this world, this murderous intent becomes clearer and the heart-spirit of the individual involved starts to awaken the heart-spirit in others. What began as the wing-beating of a single person’s heart becomes a mighty river of energy that, with the murder of the individual or a Supreme Court decision, flushes that evolved power into the Ocean of the collective Heart-Spirit, becoming the global point of no return. This is the moment we are experiencing now as I write these words.

The Judgment of Assange by the Supreme Court is now known to the world – the river has joined the ocean in challenging the global grip of a system that chooses Death-for-Others. It doesn’t matter which way the decision has gone for the global Heart-Spirit because it is now aware, awake and active. It matters to Julian and it matters to his campaigning mother, Christine. It matters to all those who – regardless of any disagreement on detail – believe Wikileaks is vital within a system built on lies and corruption. The decision matters to Anonymous. It matters to Occupy. It matters to a planet whose creative energy is based in the Dance of Life-Death-Life and it is going to matter to all those who have tried to kill, quash or otherwise destroy the uprising of Heart-Spirit within ordinary people of the planet.

If the Court’s decision has gone against Assange, the impact on all those awake to this dynamic is going to be infinite. It will affect every aspect of their being in one way or another. It will impact upon those who are capable of awakening and who have kept hoping, in vain, that some kind of sanity might be present within our collective legal systems. It will impact upon our emerging global consciousness. It will vitalise the Life-Death-Life energy. But here’s the thing…

If the Court’s decision has gone in Assange’s favour, it will have the same impact because it will tell the global consciousness that the awakening can and does succeed if we hold to our Heart-Decisions. It will revitalise the awakening movements as one of their leaders is returned to us and we turn our attention to the next Great Spirit River called Bradley Manning. As the cases of imprisoned Anons reach the courts, the same energy will occur but Assange is the first, the lighting of the blue touch paper of the Life-Death-Life fireworks.

The Life-Death-Life energy is the true power on this planet. It actually doesn’t matter which way the decision goes in collective terms, what matters is the Heart-Spirit. This is the same Heart-Spirit found in the jail-cell reflections of the target who asks “Would I have done any differently?” only to find that their answer is “No”. It is the same Heart-Energy found in Egyptians realising that they so-called system of democracy is, in truth, nothing of the sort. It is the same Heart-Energy found in Syrians who, in the face of the latest national regime specialising in absolute cruelty still find it in themselves to say “No”. It is found in the Heart-Energy of all those peoples who say No to greed, corruption, murder and destruction. In my faith, it is the natural Heart-Energy of the planet Herself, which means that it can only prevail in the longer term. There is no other alternative. In a worst case scenario, if humanity itself were to become extinct, Life would continue to exist here in some form or other. On the other hand, we could ask the Earth’s mothers how they feel about children who are ready to die so that others might live – that Mother-Heart-Energy suggests that there might be a good chance of human survival for such people.

The death-dealers need to realise that the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Julian Assange has little to do with legalities anymore, even if it might appear that way. It is about which path the Heart-Energy takes now. In much the same way as Anonymous is an idea not an individual, so what is occurring around Assange and Manning is an emotion triggered by an absence of honest truth – the instinct to do what is in harmony with the planet. Death-dealers may think they can ‘take out’ these individuals, but you can’t kill the Spirit and every time you try, the Spirit grows stronger and becomes more powerful. She can’t be evaded or avoided because this Spirit resides in everything we are and everything we see around us. If Julian Assange is being judged for his choices so, too, will you be judged and the consequence of all our collective choices is in manifestation now. I don’t know how this will happen but happen it will because the Assange River has just flowed into the Heart-Spirit Ocean and no human thing will be able halt the tides of change.

As a former prisoner, I would hope that the Supreme Court recognises the justice of Assange’s appeal because I would not wish the alternative upon the man who has done so much to contribute to the Spirit of Freedom. Nevertheless, we are in the archetypal dimensions and they have little regard for the desires of the individual ego. Planetary energies are involved and the tsunamis of global change are crashing down upon us all. This is simply the crossroads.

 

So, with all this now said, I think it’s time for me to go and find out which path the Court has decided we, as a people, are taking towards our future.