Curiosity wrote:
I understand the arbitrary detention thing as he has been effectively under house arrest despite claiming asylum in Ecuador and being at their embassy, yet not allowed to travel there.
But that argument is just wrong - he's not not allowed to travel there. He's perfectly entitled to leave the embassy and travel to an airport. It's just that there's an entirely lawful arrest warrant that can be exercised on him whilst he's on the way to the airport.
Quote:
He should still have to go to Sweden and face the charges/allegations; waiting out the statute of limitations on a charge in this way is dodgy AF.
But that's the point - that precise situation (that he has to go to Sweden as there's a warrant for his arrest and extradition) is what the UN are using as the reason he's being arbitrarily detained in a by now rather smelly embassy.
I absolutely think we should defy the UN on this, as it's fucking nuts and based on no sound legal principles that exist on earth or, indeed the actual fucking facts they're opining on*. I'd be hugely interested in who makes up this particular UN body, and what political viewpoints or vested interests they have ( e.g. anti-West). After the whole "let's make being mean to Islam a criminal offence" idea coming out of the UN working group I'm very suspicious of a lot of what they get up to in the "pontificating on stuff” arena.
*I do need to have a read of their decision in detail, though.