Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"No we have a long standing tradition and a right one in my opinion of the presumption of innocence. It is in fact the accusation which is irrelevant, and limiting of an individuals freedom, is (or at least the that’s the image which we like to project) based on the evidence presented. Right now, no evidence has been presented. There is nothing to actually prove that this accusation has any merit. The absence of a prima facie judgement means that the Swedish prosecutors haven’t proved that there is a case to answer. The presumption of innocence demands that until such a time as a case to answer has been proved, it is wrong for us to infringe or limit a persons freedom or liberty.
Political asylum doesn’t interfere with the judicial system, it is part of the judicial system. It is part of the checks and balances which protects people from a governments nefarious actions.
Turn it round, would you argue that someone granted political asylum in by the British Government, in a British embassy, should be extradited to Ecuador to face charges they, and the British Government suspect to be politically motivated where the prosecutors refused to interview them in the embassy, but demanded extradition without providing evidence there was a case to answer?'"
Right, I give up. Life's too short. Nope, you're right Smokey. The legal system should demand someone is prosecuted, tried and convicted BEFORE they can be arrested. Political asylum to non-politically threatened people fleeing the justice system doesn't interfere with the justice system. Ecuador is Sweden. Black is white. White is black.
'"
