WikiLeaks has accused the Oxford Union of censoring Julian Assange’s videolink speech on 23rd January.
They claim that the Oxford Union pulled the live stream and edited the speech over issues with the background image chosen by Assange.
During his speech, Assange featured a video released by WikiLeaks in 2010 titled ‘Collateral Muder’ that shows, from the gunner’s perspective, an Apache helicopter firing on Reuters journalists and civilians.
In the video released by the Oxford Union the original background can no longer be seen; instead, it is replaced by an official Union background. The Union maintain this is because of fears of a copyright claim from the US government. WikiLeaks, however, states that it advised the Union that “by law and practice the US government does not claim copyrights on footage or documents that it produces.”
Assange made his speech as part of the Sam Adams Awards, an event dedicated to whistleblowers, organised by the Oxford Union.
Here are the two videos in question:
Protest to his speech had been widespread, a situation that’s all too familiar for Cantabs. As most readers will already know, Assange cancelled his speech in Cambridge because of “technical reasons”. He then went on to announce a speech in Hamburg on the same day, leading the Cambridge Union to point out his “apparent dishonesty.”
The news comes at a bad time for the Oxford Union, who were recently accused of staging a cover up over the invitation of BNP leader Nick Griffin.
that was fast tab, amazing work!
what a good call it was from the Cambridge Union not to have him back this term. More trouble than it’s worth, and shows CUS doesn’t host speakers just for the sake of controversy .
Yes, but… the decision not to have him speak wasn’t made by CUS. As far as CUS is involved, no volition was shown to cancel the event.
true. Assange asked CUS if they would host him this term, and they (rightly) told him to go fuck himself.
but all I can hear is ‘I am a massive shithead’.
why do we hate Assange?
Big up the Tab manz for this #dench scoop but man knows all too well about the horrors of censorship, having had many of my insightful and thought-provoking comments blocked from past articles on here. #1984 #blukubluku
He is only back in the headlines because he constantly jumps up and down like an attentition deprieved toddler shouting ” Look at me, no one has written about poor me for 24 hours”.
And the video does not show an “attack” on civilians and children, even Assange admitted that he redacted the video and distorted the facts. The reporters were without press jackets in a group of heavily armed insurgents and killed with them, the children were in a van and not visible as such.
The video is a propaganda piece and Assange is proud of that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/stehen-colbert-vs-glenn-g_b_828079.html
“Accused”? I’m pretty sure the videos are evidence that Oxford Union did indeed censor out “Collateral Murder”.
Plus, if you watch the Q&A session, Oxford Union completely blurs out Assange in the audience shots because they were unable to edit the background.
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/8003/qacensor.png
Honestly, “Collateral Murder” has over 13 million views on Youtube. It’s been shown on news channels everywhere. It was completely nonsensical for Oxford Union to censor it.
dishonesty, but rather making an excuse so that he didn’t have to face the insane womens campaign who were running around protesting against allowing a ”rapist” [lol he's not] to enter the union. Thanks for that womens campaign, it was really great to miss out on that. Not.
The rat is back
and reading between the lines.
No need to read between the lines. Reading the lines is already enough. Cambridge Tab uses the Assange brand name to get an article in, in order to bash Oxford. Oxford used the Assange brand name in order to get a full house. The whole event was about Fingar. Oxford knew that an unknown whistleblower will not wake up sleepy students so they took advantage of a “celebrity”. Until today they did not bother to put up Fingar`s speech on their youtube channel ( now that would be something Cambridge should gleefully point out). But then, who would read an article on the Cambridge Tab about Fingar. Someone who does not complain that his speech seems to be “censored”. Its better to succumb to the known brand name and the one who jumps up and down saying: “ Me, me, dear teacher choose me”.
Both, Oxford and Cambridge, sold out in order to get a cheap point by using a minor celebrity.
Sorry, half of it is not there. The real juicy bit is that Fingar cant stand Assange and during the event made it really clear through body language and short sentences.. This makes Oxford the worst host. Imagine inviting Cousin Kevin to Aunt Amelia`s 70s birthday knowing that Amelia cant stand that prick. Worst of all, Kevin holds a speech celebrating Amelia and she is forced to smile with thin lips just for the camera`s sake. And then the media gets their knickers wet because Kevin complains that part of his pearls of wisdom are not reported world wide. Never mind that Amelia is not part of the attention. You got three attention whores: Oxford concentrating on Cousin Kevin, Cambridge concentrating on Oxford and Kevin concentrating on himself. My money is on Kevin. He played them all.
fuck is Kevin? You high?
This is interesting – the view of one of the other speaker guests, former British Ambassador (and whistleblower) Craig Murray:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/01/amelia-hill-is-a-dirty-liar/#comments
Or how about the views of all the other speaker guests:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/29/assange-allies-oxford-union?INTCMP=SRCH
Letter to the Guardian from them: “If the Guardian could “find no allies” of Julian Assange (Report, 24 January), it did not look very hard. They could be found among the appreciative audience at the Oxford Union, and in our group seated at the front: the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.”
@ arbed .Exactly my point. Fingar did NOT sign the letter. And the others, especially that obnoxious Craig Murray, are miffed that their speeches are not aired by the Oxford Union. It all evolves around Assange, he is the one who makes the loudest noise and the press uses that clown when they have nothing else to report. Its a nice triangle. Oxford used Assange for a full house, Assange plays the media for his own agenda and tries to defuse the issue that he hasn’t got the integrity to go to Sweden and Cambridge sits backs, laughs at Oxford and does not realise that they are played as well by that attention whore.
Fingar does not jump up and down, he just makes his point quietly
http://www.cherwell.org/comment/interviews/2013/02/01/interview-sam-adams-awardwinner-thomas-fingar
You sound a little bitter. Were you involved in organising the protest by any chance?
@arbed. Nope. Just find it extremely funny how the media gets played. The speech is not “censored”. Its there. Even Assange doesn’t claim that his speech was cut or altered. The only thing which was altered was the background. Assange is not the copyright holder of this and the Union wants to avoid getting into a tangle if the US military claims copyright on something on their channel. But he gets his knickers in a twist and shouts “censorship”. He shouts a lot of nonsense. And the media plays along with him. He doesn’t realize how he becomes more and more the laughing stock.
Good luck to the Aussies with “Senator Assange” (if he ever manages to get past the legal hurdles AND actually gets some votes but I think he does it for the money since he cant even nominee a “spare second” if he himself cant be sworn in). He would make a the caricature of a politician: A coward who runs to another country in case of trouble, so full of himself that he thinks he should not answer to “random prosecutors” about “minor” issues like rape, rather murky financial dealings, an entourage who behaves like a cult, a strict “whip” to make sure everyone stays in line and someone who moans constantly that the media is mean to him.
It says here that the “Collateral Murder” video “shows, from the gunner’s perspective, an Apache helicopter firing on Reuters journalists and civilians.” That’s simply not true! Main stream media is lying about the entire incident. How you can tell:
There are eighteen men, reported to be local civilians, in an open courtyard when the Reuters employees arrive [01:31]. [Note that their purpose for being there was to photograph an American Humvee being attacked by insurgents.] Nineteen if we include the van driver who arrives later.
We hear endless reports about the Reuters employees and van driver but nothing about the other sixteen men. Not a word about two who drove away on a moped; six killed along side the Reuters employees or two wounded in that engagement; two killed helping with the so-called rescue and their two companions who may have been inside a nearby home, one killed and the other wounded; and almost nothing about the remaining two who may have been insurgents later seen entering a building.
The only thing certain is that three of these nineteen men, one carrying an AK47, one with an RPG and one carrying an additional RPG round, were protecting a mosque four blocks away.
No fuss, no funerals, no interviews, no hospital records, no graves, no names and no grieving loved ones for any of these sixteen men. All, according to main stream media, were reported to be “local” civilians.
Pity the Oxford Union didn’t publish Fingar’s speech. Then the debate might have centred around its content. Sadly the most important who doesn’t like who question was thus avoided.
Justmytwocents,
“And the others, especially that obnoxious Craig Murray, are miffed that their speeches are not aired by the Oxford Union.”
I have no idea why you call me obnoxious. Nor do I have any idea why you say I am miffed by the fact that the Oxford Union did not air my speech. Where have I ever made any such complaint? I am however concerned that Tom Fingar’s speech – he did after all win the award – has not appeared.
It seems this comment section is being shared by the Oxford and Cambridge Tab versions of this article.
That would explain why some of the comments are very dull.