And one thing Assange used to say over and over again, was that he was inspired by government attempts to suppress WikiLeaks releases, because that was evidence that they feared the information in them could actually change things. This is pretty much also the main thesis of Chomsky, and many other western dissidents (and some others too, e.g. Ai Weiwei): our leaders are as unaccountable and willing to use brutality as any dictatorship, they just have less reason to.
Call me when the UK government brings the machine guns and starts slaughtering 40k Palestine Action protestors and I promise to agree it's all the same
I'll make it easier for you:
wake me up when the UK government slaughters 1% the amount of the protestors the Iranian government just did in two days.
400 protestors shot by machine guns mounted on SUVs in London.
That just might be approaching slippery slope territory to the current Iranian actions.
Currently I believe we are at zero protestors casually shot on the streets of the UK, so I fail to see the equivalency
Bad as the Iranian regime is, we know that foreign governments are actively working for regime change/collapse in Iran (Mossad boasted in public about being with the protesters on the ground in Iran, whether that's true or not it seems like a statement intended to make things worse). So maybe be extra careful where you source those death numbers claims.
UK is not, and will not be in the situation Iran is in for the foreseeable future. There will not be several powerful countries, some widely hated in UK and openly preferring a UK in smoking ruins to democratic government in the UK, calling for revolution there (although don't get me wrong, UK too could totally could use a revolution). UK has nuclear weapons. UK has a world-class surveillance apparatus, and doesn't have to contend with the cynical people running it getting regularly murdered or bought out by more powerful actors.
What all this means - and this has been the core message of just about all dissidents in western countries for decades - is that the people with control in the UK don't have to gun down hundreds (or tens of thousands, if you believe the colored reports) in the streets to cling to power. If it was their best option, they might.
Sure, and his treatment has been awful in so many ways.
I'm honestly not trying to defend any action by any state in this thread, I'm not trying to say that the UK is better than any other state. I'm not trying to make any point at all beyond using a specific example in agreeing with the comments above mine that "Everything is the same and comparable never mind how hyperbolic."
But it seems to be construed as if I am, no matter how much I agree that the actions we're talking about are terrible. People come back and tell me the UK is bad and I should feel bad for defending it. I know right! And if I was I would!
I must admit I find the whole thing very frustrating.
The problem is you have to fight for these things every generation.
It's a mistake to take things like trial by jury, open justice ( not secret courts ), non-arbitrary detention, even regular elections for granted.
I totally agree with you that the UK is not Iran and there is too much hyperbole - but at the same time the current government is trying to criminalise legitimate protest, cancelling elections and trying to remove trial by jury for a substantial set of things ( the ultimate protection against an authoritarian state ).
As an example, it's very telling that the government ensured that in all the Assange legal proceedings it never went before a jury.
The current government creating all these precedents, in the shadow of the prospect of a potential Reform government is something I think we should all be concerned about.
Tell me about it, that Jury thing in particular was shocking to hear, that they’re considering throwing aside an ancient right in the name of expediency and clearing a backlog, as if it was a minor detail and not the basis of the system of justice.
Especially since there is no evidence that it's the presence of juries is the cause of the backlog.
The idea that the state can deprive you of your freedom for a sentence likely to be less than 3 years without the chance to be tried before you peers, is worrying.
Note is was six months before Nov 2024, it's 12 months now and they are looking to extend to 3 years! ( or more - given the word: likely ).
Juries are not an administrative inconvenience or process inefficiency.
The current legal reform seems to be operating on the assumption that the defendent is guilty - rather thana resumption of innocence.
Better to let the guilty to go free, than imprison the innocent.
Sure. Though in the UK I give you Julian Assange - 5 years in BellMarsh, mostly in total isolation as if he was some major threat.