Interview with Stella Assange
With the years-long trial against Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks case, there is a lot of controversy about his figure and the organization’s activities. Some actively express support for Julian on social networks and consider him a hero and fighter for freedom of speech and the press, while others consider him a criminal and accuse him of having connections with the intelligence services. Speaking about the Assange case, it is essential to understand that behind the long process of his trials, there is a large legal team whose activities are no less important in influencing the outcome of the case. This time I spoke with Stella Assange, the head of the legal team, Julian’s defender, and also his wife. Although our conversation focused on Stella’s comments about WikiLeaks and Julian’s case, I also really wanted to talk to Stella about Stella outside the court — about her path and background, about her as a woman who has gone through many challenges over several years, who in times gets tired, and scared. About a woman who has children. And about a woman who continues to fight for the reunification of her family.
This interview was conducted a few weeks before Julian Assange was released. He is currently back in Australia reunited with Stella Assange.
Stella, to start, could you please share a bit of your background and how you became involved in activism and legal work?
Stella:
I think I grew up with it. My parents were activists. They had their daytime jobs, but then they were activists in southern Africa against apartheid in the eighties and seventies. I was born in 1983, so I grew up with that culture around me — a fight for freedom and self-living in a society where you have the right to pursue your freedom. When I went to university, I thought I should put that into gaining skills. I thought I’d study law and politics and eventually train to be a lawyer. When WikiLeaks appeared on the scene in 2010, I was fascinated by it because I considered it a game changer in the field of human rights, exposing government malfeasance, corruption, and so on. A few months later, I thought about joining the legal team, but it was after everything had broken. So, I was aware of the story and wanted to be part of the defense because there was already a crackdown.
How exactly did it happen that you joined the team?
Stella:
It was through one of the lawyers I knew indirectly and who reached out. It was at a critical time. Julian was facing extradition to Sweden. At the time, I had lived in Sweden and spoke Swedish, so I had the skill set they needed. However, more important than anything was that I was a fit in terms of my outlook on that. I understood the significance of WikiLeaks and that there was a political crackdown against WikiLeaks that was, you know, abusing the legal system to try to shut down Nicole’s publications and freedom of speech, essentially.
From a legal standpoint, what do you believe can be considered the most significant injustice in the case of Julian?
Stella:
The case of Julian redefines. A lot of things converge in this case, but at its essence, it is criminalizing the ability to speak and share the truth. And that is a fundamental shift away from a consensus. The truth used to be sacred, and now it is criminalized, and it’s fair game. You can still go after a journalist or a publisher, regardless of the fact that what he published was factual information. This is not just true information but true information that exposes state criminality. And this is an actual departure from everything that has come before because it’s an indirect conflict with democratic principles. It is an endorsement of an authoritarian reaction.
As a lawyer, how do you usually address personal misconceptions about Julian?
Stella:
Well, Julian has suffered a massive, unprecedented reputational attack as part of the broader attack against him. It was financial, obviously, legal, but a big part of it has also been reputational. When you have a case of political persecution of someone who’s extremely popular, the first thing that is done is to attack their character and undermine their political support because it is also a political attack. To resist that, you need political capital. The attack against his reputation was to reduce it. To use his political capital to eventually make it possible for him to be arrested, imprisoned, prosecuted, etc. So it’s just one point. Not dealing with an actual personality. Whenever I’m asked about supposed character flaws, I question how these questions are being put. That’s not what’s going on because what does that even mean? What is a character flaw? Everyone has them, right? It’s an attempt to play into that, undermining his political support. It is especially frustrating from the point of view of not just a lawyer but also his wife. The attacks on him, of course, have nothing to do with him as a person. Out of court, as his wife, it’s frustrating that this kind of smear is out there and needs to be countered sometimes, and I need to dispel it.
How do you think his case impacts the general concept of free speech and press worldwide?
Stella:
Julian has been a free speech champion all his life in various incarnations. Before becoming a journalist, he was a cryptographer, trying to find ways specifically for activists to communicate in authoritarian contexts. He developed soft cryptography and cryptographic tools like rubber hose, which enabled activists to deniably hold and transmit information. Afterward, he founded WikiLeaks, the most successful project he ran and dedicated to the freedom of information.
It’s beyond journalism; I would describe it as the rebel Library of Alexandria. It’s an archive. You know, authentic documents that have been suppressed, censored, and kept from the public. In many ways, it has been a game changer. It has transformed and evolved journalism because of the type of methodologies that WikiLeaks introduced, like using cryptography to receive information and anonymize sources and collaboration between organizations to publish and get the most out of these massive archives and just the archive model. All of these were massive innovations that have given the public access to information that it never had before and has yet to have since.
It’s given the public access to history, contemporary history, and not just. To the things normally being massaged or represented other than what actually exists. The discussions, the true stakes, and so on are exposed in these publications. So that’s a massive gift to humanity’s knowledge about the world. You know, you can’t overstate the significance of it. However, in terms of the reaction to the innovation that WikiLeaks brought in, it sets a new legal and political precedent that doesn’t just affect Julian. The United States sets a global standard in which imprisoning a journalist is normalized. It is not just something that authoritarian, autocratic regimes do. The US does it, too. And so that’s just the general standards drop because everyone is doing it right. It also starts a political trend where, with Julian in prison, dissidents and journalists all over the world are less safe because there is no free press in reality. Those proponents who are the strongest on the free press are the ones doing the imprisoning.
So there’s nothing. There’s no safety, not even a rhetorical political safety net. Thus, it is a legal precedent. It is a political precedent, and it affects everyone. It affects the political climate more broadly all over the world. There is no reason any other country wouldn’t use the same principle of going after a journalist or a publisher because of what he’s published. Even if it’s true and implicates your government committing crimes, they’ll go after you anyway. It’ll put you in prison. They’ll use you. They’ll put you in jail while you fight extradition. The extradition case is completely ludicrous because it’s criminalizing publishing the truth and so on. It’s a complete inversion of the principles of a free and open democratic society.
There is a public perception of Julian being a controversial figure. What are the common misconceptions, and how can they be debunked?
Stella:
The first thing to understand is that, of course, he’s controversial because he has done such significant work exposing the most powerful entities in the world. You don’t do that and not get labeled controversial. If you want to avoid controversy, the way to do it is to comply and be submissive to corrupt power. Anything you do in the other direction is going to imply controversy. So don’t shy away from controversy.
How to support him? Anyone can support Julian within their network. It’s imperative for people who are young to understand the significance of his case and how it affects them; that freedom everywhere is at stake because he is a high-profile political prisoner in the West. That he and what happens to him sets and defines what happens in the future. So either we free him and freedom prevails, or he remains imprisoned. There’s no real meaningful broader freedom if he remains imprisoned. It’s also incredibly fascinating to understand as a case. To understand how power operates, how democratic and so-called democratic countries really behave when they pursue you, and when elements within those democratic countries decide to retaliate. This is not to say that the US is not a democratic country. It is. But sometimes, there are elements within the state that run out of control. And that’s what has happened. In Julian’s case, when Mike Pompeo was head of the CIA, there were plans to even assassinate him in the embassy or kidnap and then assassinate him, and so on. There’s been a change of administration. It doesn’t seem like that’s the thinking of the CIA right now, however that could change. But this is a reality that you’re dealing not with just one entity, but you’re dealing with different interest groups and factions within them. Some are more powerful than others. And so I think from the perspective of understanding the world. Understanding this case gives you a key to unlocking the broader understanding of how power operates and when freedom is at stake. If you’re really trying to push for a project that increases people’s freedom, how do states react, and how do democratic states react? Understanding this gives you a broader understanding of what you’re up against.
So, the best way to debunk misconceptions is to get in-depth into the case and educate yourself. That will give you an understanding of the root of a problem.
Speaking of supporting Julian, if one wants, every person is in a position to help. Some people may be in a position to financially support the campaign. Obviously, the United States has spent millions and millions of dollars persecuting Julian and keeping him in prison. It takes a lot of money to counter that.
Other help can come from educating and talking about Julian’s case with other people — friends, family, colleagues. Following the case on social media, reading books, and watching movies. I believe understanding this case gives you a better understanding of the modern world we’re living in.
Stella, you obviously have a large media coverage. Lots of people are asking you questions from a legal standpoint, but you’re also a person, a woman, a wife, a mother. How do you manage? What are your biggest challenges in your personal journey within this story?
Stella:
There are two layers. First of all, there is Julian and I, our family and the way we’re in it together. There is the life we want to live together and simply to get through this period. That is the main motivation that keeps me going and fighting for Julian’s freedom — to imagine how our future can be.
But also, what’s really inspiring is how much people care about Julian and this case. It’s incredible. I meet and talk to really, really different types of people on a daily basis. You regain faith in humanity because you see so much. You get thrown all the opposite all the time on social media. But there are so many people who are fighting for Julian’s freedom. I’m just the person closest to him, but there are a lot of people who are dedicating their time, skills, or abilities they have — like grandmothers writing #FreeAssange on yellow ribbons and spending all weekend doing that. Hundreds and hundreds of ribbons are given to people in positions of power who are behind the scenes trying to unlock the situation.
That is the best hope we have to free Julian. Like every layer of society, this layered support is where you have people who understand that their agency plays a role in someone’s freedom. That’s the only way, in the end, that Julian can be free because he’s up against very powerful actors who are doing the wrong thing. You need enough people to say and act against the injustice for that to become unsustainable. It’s the silence, the indifference. That kind of thing is the worst possible thing that could happen. But it’s not what has happened. We’ve seen the opposite. That support has been building despite the huge resources and efforts the other side has put in to try to lie, smear, and all these things. They’ve tried to pretend that this case was about it. However, they’ve been unsuccessful. Everyone understands that this is a historic injustice, that Julian is being hounded for doing the right thing, and that he has to be released. And they’ve lost. In that sense, of course, Julian has suffered, has had to suffer for years in prison and years of confinement. However, in terms of the significance of this case, the importance of Julian’s contribution to knowledge freedom and the rights of individuals is undeniable. Injustice always loses that game.
