Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:06, 19 February 2011 editYger (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users632 edits →POV ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:22, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,847,970 editsm →top: blp=yes has priority over blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB
(862 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Old XfD multi\|date=3 March 2011 (UTC)\|result='''no consensus'''\|page=Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange}}
	==Page created==
			{{Old XfD multi\|date=12 March 2011 (UTC)\|result='''speedy keep - withdrawn'''\|page=Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange}}
	There is much more important information on the Assange case that has been reported in reliable sources, but we cannot expand the section any more in ] because it already takes up an ] amount of space, so I have created this article for the case. This way, we can include all of the information on the case that has been reported by reliable source while making the necessary reductions to the sexual allegation parts of the Julian Assange article. The new article currently relies heavily on the material from the Julian Assange article](copy pasted) plus from MSNBC. I won't link this article to that one until significant improvements to this article have been made, and the size of the section in the Julian Assange article has been carefully reduced. ] (]) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject banner shell\| blp=yes\|class=C\|listas=Assange, Julian, Swedish Judicial Authority V\|1=
	:This is a) rather biased, and b) will not be interesting after extradition. /] (]) 08:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Biography}}
	::a) This can be {{tl\|sofixit}}ed through editing b) if he is extradited the title will become the ]. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 13:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject International relations\|importance=low\|law=yes\|law-importance=low}}
	:::b) In fact, once he is extradited, the case may still be called "Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange" although it might become Swedish Prosecution Authority v. Julian Assange.
			{{WikiProject Gender studies\|importance=mid}}
	:::a) In what way is it biased and for which side? Pretty much all I did was copy the segment from the ] article and missing facts using a timeline of factual material published in a reliable source, and then I tidies up a bit. In any case, "biased" is rarely if ever a reason for article deletion; it's a reason for adding more factual material from reliable sources and finding quotes to represent opinions that are not duly represented. So far, The only "opinions" are the charges against Assange, the response to the charges from his defence, plus a few quotes from the Swedish prosecutors and one from an alleged victim. The article is mainly factual with few opinions, so there is not much room for "bias" unless you believe there are some important facts that have been omitted, in which case we can find reliable sources for those facts and insert them. ] (]) 00:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=Low}}
	::::This article clearly gives most weight to Assange's defense. Part of this may be because his defense has been quite succesfull in presenting that side in English-language media, and because some wikipedians have removed references to sources in Swedish. But this article does more. For example, the lede almost starts out with: "''He is wanted for questioning, having not yet been formally charged.''" I do not quite see that in the two references given. /] (]) 10:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Ecuador\|importance=Low}}
	::::Sorry wrong refs. I'll fix that. ] (]) 10:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Sweden\|importance=mid}}
	::::Sorry, but it doesn't seem clear to me that the article gives most weight to Assange's defence. What statements by the prosecutors are missing? Feel free to add them if you can find them in reliable sources. ] (]) 11:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject United Kingdom\|importance=low}}
	:::::Part of this is the space given to the defense, which is of course due to the enormous volume of statements by Assange's defense compared to the terse statements by his accusors. But what is obviously missing is the fact that Swedish courts (not just the prosecution) have seen '''probable cause''' for the suspicion of rape. I an not going to do work on this article until the case has been decided. /] (]) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
			}}
	::::::According to Misplaced Pages, "probable cause" simply means "the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest", so if they have issued a warrant, then by definition they must have found probable cause. That does not say anything about the quality of the evidence against Assange, only of the Swedish standards for issuing an arrest warrant. The term "probable cause" is obviously not being used here in the second sense of "the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed", because Assange has not yet been tried in front of a judge or jury. ] (]) 13:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	:I actually think this was a good initiative. The matter is to complex to be covered well in the main Assanga article. The new article as it stands has way to much gossip material though. We don't know enough yet about neither Assange's or the prosecution's version of the story. Most of the current information is secondary sources reporting what other secondary sources reported from unnamed sources.] (]) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	::As long as it appears in reliable sources, material should be included, but in cases where the factual style statements are in doubt we could change it to quotations of the reliable source rather than stating their material as fact. ] (]) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\|counter = 3
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			{{Archives\|auto=long\|search=yes\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=3\|units=months}}
	== The condome ==

			== Assange left Sweden in September 2010 and was arrested in his absence the same day ? ==
	I have taken away the wording that the condome broke during the sex act, as this is one of the many unclear and contested facts in the story. In some ways it is good to be more clear in a description like this of what actually happened. At the same time, though, it will be then be based on secondary sources, and therefore will in details include errounous and/or contested facts. And to evaluate what version from the two parties of what happened is to beleived is up for the court to descide, not us editors. I general I also agree with Peter K above that the whole story has a biased undertone. For example the details of the problems the prosecuters had getting an interview wih Assange is presented by them very differently from what is written in this article and what the legal represenatives for Assange state. There has in Swedish newspapers (I know this is not acceptable source for en:wp, but why state here contradictory statements?) been presened a detailed account of all telephone calls, mails etc in relation to try to get hold of Assange for questioning.] (]) 13:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
	:Umm... in relation to the broken condom, both the reliable sources and the victim herself say it broke during sex, not before. If you feel there are facts or opinions missing and can supply reliable sources for them, then feel free to add them. ] (]) 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
	::I have but they are in Swedish, and I have learnt sources in Swedsih is not acceptable in en:wp.(and reliable - this is a case for court to decide on and before they give a verdict, no seconadry sources can be seen as reilable).] (]) 13:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
	:::Swedish sources are acceptable if it is a reliable source to begin with (not a tabloid newspaper) and you can find a reliable translation. Otherwise, find it in an English newspaper, or remove the tag. ] (]) 13:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

			‘In August 2010, when the rape claims were first made, Assange voluntarily remained in Sweden and presented himself to the police. After assessing the evidence, the chief prosecutor said “no crime” had been committed and that the file would be “closed.”’
	== POV ==

			‘The case against Assange was reopened a month later by a different local prosecutor. From 8 to 14 September, Assange repeatedly offered to be questioned but no interview was arranged. The prosecutor advised Assange on 15 September that he was free to leave Sweden, which he did.’
	The article is in general biased in what facts its include, see for exampel fact about condiome, and the process of the prosecuters trying to get in contact with Assange. Also the factual description is based on one secondary source containg contested facts which is at the very center of the legal case (if the condome broke during the sex act or before). There are other secondary sources givining these facts differently, and the selection of source is then a POV act.] (]) 13:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
	:If this is true, then you should be able to provide us with the reliable sources that contradict the material in this article, or provide these missing facts. ] (]) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
	::Here one of the most serious Swedish newpaper refers what is stated in the offical summary from the prosecuters (ie a most official version). Especially the facts relating to the condome is different from the version in this article.] (]) 13:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
	:::I used Google translate and it seems no different from what appears already in the article. What does it say that does not appear in this article? ] (]) 13:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
	::::This passage ''När han gör det upplever värdinnan ”ett stort outtalat motstånd” från Assange. Under samlaget märker hon hur Assange börjar greja med kondomen. Efteråt förstod hon att den var trasig.'' She is implying that Assange delibetly broke the condome with his fingers. This is also what other newsarticles report miss A has been stated to friends. Whatever is the truth is not for wp to then state that it broke during the sex act implying by the sex act.] (]) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

			https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/assange-swedes-uk-obstructed-sex-crime-investigation/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::This article with~insight into the investigation, state that the way the condome broke is a key issue and the most urgent question the prosecuters want to inteerrogate Assange about. Also the articls says the critical reason for the investigation was reopened was that the broken condome was presented to the police by miss A.] (]) 13:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

	::::A similar article with a picture of the actual condome .] (]) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
			== Assange arrested in Sweden? ==

			I removed the following
			:Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.<ref name="Swedish Prosecution Authority"/>
			If there was an order, I am pretty sure Assange was not actually arrested, and talked to the police in Sweden some days later.
			The referenced link is dead.
			So some research is required if this is to go back in, was he actually arrested or not?

			{{reflist-talk}}

			== Prosecutor Ny's abuse of process// extradition warrant. ==

			<P>"the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him" (a red herring that the Assange camp continues to spread, explained numerous times) <P>
			Sources: <P>
			One reference is a Nordic Page and the other is the Guardian. <P>
			"This week, Amnesty International called on Sweden to provide a guarantee that if Assange travelled there to answer questions over the sex-crime allegations, he would not be sent on to the US for charges connected to WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of US diplomatic and military cables"<P>
			There was a blase response from Sweden<P>
			"A spokeswoman for the Swedish foreign ministry said the country's legislation did not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined." <P>
			Sweden's response would appear to be absolute nonsense. Immunities from prosecution are routinely handed out to all sorts of criminals in exchange for example information or testimony. In Assange's case despite already having Assange's statement, prosecutor Ny unreasonably issued an extradition process to drag Assange back to "Sweden" for "questioning". (Eventually a Swedish court ruled Assange's presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation)<P>
			Ny's unwarranted actions further fueled Assange's well documented and subsequently justified fears that he was being persecuted. Sweden has done nothing to dispel the allegation that Ny conspired to have Assange extradited to face the rage of the United States for publishing evidence leaked largely by it own appalled citizens.<P>
			Prosecutor Ny is at the center of the extradition process. That an English court upheld Ny's warrant to extradite Assange when his presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation brings the English Courts into disrepute. Its a basic legal principle that a court can not order an unnecessary act<P>
			Lets look at a hypothetical situation.<P>
			The English Crown Prosecution Service resists Ny's warrant because it clearly unnecessary to have Assange present in Sweden to further Ny's investigation. <P>
			Does this cause a diplomatic incident? No It is the just application of law.<P>
			Does this prevent Ny from investigating Assange. No. In fact it expedites Ny's investigation by removing an unnecessary process.<P>
			Does this prevent Ny from charging Assange? No Nye already has Assange's police statement and many others and can charge him in absentia.<P>
			Does this prevent the United States from extraditing Assange. No. The USA has an extradition treaty with the UK and is using it.<P>
			Does this allow Assange freedom and procedural justice? Yes. Assange can conduct his business and defend himself against persecution.<P>
			Does this cost the UK taxpayers millions of dollars? No. It is unlikely this course of action would cost much at all.<P>
			Does this deny alleged victims justice. No. Assange can be criminally charged or civil action taken against him.<P>
			Is anyone in any way hindered. Not significantly. Assange may still need to attend court. Ny has her nose put out of joint.<P>
			Is this a proper course of action for English Crown prosecutors. Yes. Prosecutors are officers of the court that are bound to assist the court act judicially. Court Officers are liable for the consequences of errors in law. <P>

			<P> I just cannot see a valid reason for Ny issuing a warrant to extradite Assange who had already made his statement. Assange had a Swedish lawyer and would not be making further admissions. Short of torture or some sort of hypnotism to extract a confession what could be gained. I suppose there was the possibility of trying on some sort of honey trap operation to ensnare Assange or laying bogus charges of some sort as police forces often do. Then again I guess Ny may just have wanted to meet the famous Julian Assange. Maybe Ny thought she could seduce Assange or something similar. Whatever her reasons, it was a crazy thing for Ny to do resulting in a very disturbing and successful abuse of process.

			:None of this is in the article, which is odd. Also, not a word about Sweden justice dropping the charges and in which circumstances. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Not minor edit ==

			My edit shows as minor but that is wrong. I added text and citations and moved text to fix timeline order. It was not a minor edit sorry ] (]) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

			== BLP: Charges vs allegations ==

			The wording in this article stated that there were legal ]s against Assange; this was a ] violation. Overall, the sources do not support the claim that charges were filed: there were allegations and an arrest warrant. (Some sources are sloppy and write "charges".)

			I have {{diff\|Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority\|1230902978\|1227753085\|corrected these BLP violations}}.

			I've left in a quote from Assange in his initial reaction, in which he apparently thought that charges had been filed.

			I've left in the loose usage of the word "charge" in the ''United Nations finding'' section on ]. In this case, e.g. {{tq\|The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily}} it's clear that there is no criminal charge against two governments, since governments are (almost) never charged with criminal actions (the ] can in principle be charged against governments, and there are some court cases against govts, but that's clearly not the case here). Moreover, governments are not individuals. So the BLP risk seems low in this section. But if someone wants to improve the wording, that probably would be possible. ] (]) 10:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:22, 12 November 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep - withdrawn.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance).

Gender studies Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ecuador Low‑importance

	Ecuador portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Assange left Sweden in September 2010 and was arrested in his absence the same day ?

‘In August 2010, when the rape claims were first made, Assange voluntarily remained in Sweden and presented himself to the police. After assessing the evidence, the chief prosecutor said “no crime” had been committed and that the file would be “closed.”’

‘The case against Assange was reopened a month later by a different local prosecutor. From 8 to 14 September, Assange repeatedly offered to be questioned but no interview was arranged. The prosecutor advised Assange on 15 September that he was free to leave Sweden, which he did.’

https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/assange-swedes-uk-obstructed-sex-crime-investigation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.107.91 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Assange arrested in Sweden?

I removed the following

Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.

If there was an order, I am pretty sure Assange was not actually arrested, and talked to the police in Sweden some days later. The referenced link is dead. So some research is required if this is to go back in, was he actually arrested or not?

References

Cite error: The named reference Swedish Prosecution Authority was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Prosecutor Ny's abuse of process// extradition warrant.

"the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him" (a red herring that the Assange camp continues to spread, explained numerous times)

Sources: explained numerous

One reference is a Nordic Page and the other is the Guardian.

"This week, Amnesty International called on Sweden to provide a guarantee that if Assange travelled there to answer questions over the sex-crime allegations, he would not be sent on to the US for charges connected to WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of US diplomatic and military cables"

There was a blase response from Sweden

"A spokeswoman for the Swedish foreign ministry said the country's legislation did not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined."

Sweden's response would appear to be absolute nonsense. Immunities from prosecution are routinely handed out to all sorts of criminals in exchange for example information or testimony. In Assange's case despite already having Assange's statement, prosecutor Ny unreasonably issued an extradition process to drag Assange back to "Sweden" for "questioning". (Eventually a Swedish court ruled Assange's presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation)

Ny's unwarranted actions further fueled Assange's well documented and subsequently justified fears that he was being persecuted. Sweden has done nothing to dispel the allegation that Ny conspired to have Assange extradited to face the rage of the United States for publishing evidence leaked largely by it own appalled citizens.

Prosecutor Ny is at the center of the extradition process. That an English court upheld Ny's warrant to extradite Assange when his presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation brings the English Courts into disrepute. Its a basic legal principle that a court can not order an unnecessary act

Lets look at a hypothetical situation.

The English Crown Prosecution Service resists Ny's warrant because it clearly unnecessary to have Assange present in Sweden to further Ny's investigation.

Does this cause a diplomatic incident? No It is the just application of law.

Does this prevent Ny from investigating Assange. No. In fact it expedites Ny's investigation by removing an unnecessary process.

Does this prevent Ny from charging Assange? No Nye already has Assange's police statement and many others and can charge him in absentia.

Does this prevent the United States from extraditing Assange. No. The USA has an extradition treaty with the UK and is using it.

Does this allow Assange freedom and procedural justice? Yes. Assange can conduct his business and defend himself against persecution.

Does this cost the UK taxpayers millions of dollars? No. It is unlikely this course of action would cost much at all.

Does this deny alleged victims justice. No. Assange can be criminally charged or civil action taken against him.

Is anyone in any way hindered. Not significantly. Assange may still need to attend court. Ny has her nose put out of joint.

Is this a proper course of action for English Crown prosecutors. Yes. Prosecutors are officers of the court that are bound to assist the court act judicially. Court Officers are liable for the consequences of errors in law.

I just cannot see a valid reason for Ny issuing a warrant to extradite Assange who had already made his statement. Assange had a Swedish lawyer and would not be making further admissions. Short of torture or some sort of hypnotism to extract a confession what could be gained. I suppose there was the possibility of trying on some sort of honey trap operation to ensnare Assange or laying bogus charges of some sort as police forces often do. Then again I guess Ny may just have wanted to meet the famous Julian Assange. Maybe Ny thought she could seduce Assange or something similar. Whatever her reasons, it was a crazy thing for Ny to do resulting in a very disturbing and successful abuse of process.

None of this is in the article, which is odd. Also, not a word about Sweden justice dropping the charges and in which circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.125.155 (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Not minor edit

My edit shows as minor but that is wrong. I added text and citations and moved text to fix timeline order. It was not a minor edit sorry Softlem (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

BLP: Charges vs allegations

The wording in this article stated that there were legal (criminal) charges against Assange; this was a WP:BLP violation. Overall, the sources do not support the claim that charges were filed: there were allegations and an arrest warrant. (Some sources are sloppy and write "charges".)

I have corrected these BLP violations.

I've left in a quote from Assange in his initial reaction, in which he apparently thought that charges had been filed.

I've left in the loose usage of the word "charge" in the United Nations finding section on arbitrary detention. In this case, e.g. The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily it's clear that there is no criminal charge against two governments, since governments are (almost) never charged with criminal actions (the crime of aggression can in principle be charged against governments, and there are some court cases against govts, but that's clearly not the case here). Moreover, governments are not individuals. So the BLP risk seems low in this section. But if someone wants to improve the wording, that probably would be possible. Boud (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: