Paul Watson and Julian Assange are two controversial activists who currently share a few things in common. They are both in Europe awaiting extradition proceedings related to criminal charges, they have captured news media headlines, they have managed to stir up polarizing opinions with regard to the significance of their work, and they have also called attention to the possibility of political motives behind their respective international requests for surrender.
Perhaps the most substantial issue that Mr. Assange and Mr. Watson have pointed out with vehemence is that they both fear for their lives should their extraditions be carried through. Mr. Watson does not believe that Costa Rica can provide him with sufficient protection against an organized crime group he calls the Taiwanese shark finning mafia. Mr. Assange believes that the United States government considers him an enemy of the state -something that could endanger his life while in transit or once in Sweden.
The rationales presented by Mr. Assange and Mr. Watson with regard to threats to their life are not based on specious arguments. The threats sound ominous, and are not altogether implausible. It can be assumed, with a great degree of certainty, that prosecutors in Costa Rica and Sweden are well-aware of the news media spotlight that their respective extradition subjects have managed to capture. Should anything happen to these men while awaiting extradition, or while in transit or facing trial, a news media explosion would ensue along with an ugly diplomatic situation. Both nations are known to respect human rights, and to that degree they should be very concerned about the safety of the men they have called upon to surrender. There should be equal protection for all extradition subjects with regard to their safety, but Sweden and Costa Rica know that the stakes are higher with respect to Mr. Assange and Mr. Watson.
The Political Angle
Mr. Assange and Mr. Watson have made allusions to political motives behind their detention and extradition requests, but the similarities end there. A brief background on these activists, who are currently deprived from total freedom:
Mr. Assange will turn 42 years of age a month from now. He is best known as the founder of WikiLeaks, the online publishing service for major whistleblowing releases that aims to do more than just leaking. Mr. Assange has frequently stated that WikiLeaks is an effort to foster open governance and absolute transparency. The body of releases and leaks published by Mr. Assange is impressive: from Church of Scientology manuals to documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The biggest publication to date by WikiLeaks has been, without a doubt, the treasure trove of U.S. diplomatic cables -a few of them written by American diplomatic staff in Costa Rica. Journalism organizations have lauded Mr. Assange’s work.
The extradition request of Mr. Assange involves allegations that he committed sexual offenses in Sweden. It is important to note that Mr. Assange has not been formally charged, and that his request for extradition is for the purpose of questioning him. Formal charges cannot be filed until the Swedish Prosecution Authority interrogates Mr. Assange, who is appealing a London High Court decision to extradite him. Mr. Assange is currently on conditional bail with a series of restrictions that essentially amount to house arrest.
The political angle in this case was commented on by one of Mr. Assange’s lawyers back in 2010. Speaking to BBC News, attorney Mark Stephens mentioned that since the case against his client was once dropped, only to be later reopened with corresponding Interpol notices, his arrest seemed like a political stunt.
Mr. Watson is 62 years old. He is the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the star of the popular reality television program Whale Wars, which is broadcast by cable television network Animal Planet. The organization Mr. Watson founded operates on the principle of direct action against major threats to marine life: irresponsible fishing, poaching, shark finning, and whaling, among others. Mr. Watson’s environmental activism has been lauded by some groups and criticized by others. Mr. Watson enjoys wide support by some members of the glitterati, and his Sea Shepherd organization conducts extensive public relations and media campaigns to promote awareness of their work and causes.
The extradition request of Mr. Watson involves allegations that he recklessly endangered a fishing vessel and the lives of the Costa Rican crew. It is important to note that Mr. Watson has been formally charged, and that he once sailed away from Costa Rica based on the advice of his attorney. He was arrested in mid-May by German authorities, and is currently free on bail while he fights extradition to Costa Rica, a decision that could arrive next week.
The political angle in this case comes from the Sea Shepherd organization media arm. An official communication from that entity, dated May 18th, mentioned that an international campaign was underway to save Mr. Watson from a politically-motivated extradition to Costa Rica, where the organization claims that he will not receive a fair trial.
Sweden and Costa Rica are ruled by democratic systems under robust doctrines of separation of powers. Likewise, that doctrine is shared by the nations in which Mr. Assange and Mr. Watson are currently fighting their respective extradition requests from -the United Kingdom and Germany. Both men have been reminded by the foreign affairs departments of each country that their extradition requests are judicial matters, and thus the state departments cannot intervene. Mr. Assange has been receptive with regard to accepting the separation of powers while Mr. Watson and his supporters insist that the Executive branch in Costa Rica should intervene. The Chancellor of Costa Rica met with Mr. Watson during a visit to Germany and explained the doctrine to him personally.
The Media Angle
Mr. Assange and Mr. Watson have made clever use of the media to advance their activism. To that effect, Mr. Watson has the entertainment media advantage thanks to Whale Wars and the cache of celebrities who have donated millions of dollars to the Sea Shepherd organization. Mr. Assange stature as a journalistic figure gives him a news media advantage. Both men have are active in media: Season 5 of Whale Wars is currently airing on Animal Planet while Mr. Assange has his own online interview show, The World Tomorrow.
The extradition proceedings of both activists have permeated the news media world. Ever since their respective arrests, Mr. Assange and Mr. Watson have been making international headlines. We live in the Information Age, and thus the exposure that news media has given to both men -which includes satirical treatments by The Simpsons and South Park- has managed to give both WikiLeaks and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society a place in our mainstream consciousness. Given the role of Whale Wars, one could argue that Mr. Watson stands more to gain by being in the limelight than Mr. Assange.
The arrests of both men have resulted not only in strong opinions by supporters, but also in warnings of direct action in the form of boycotts. In Mr. Assange’s case, a boycott of Swedish products and services, along with a boycott on payment networks used to donate funds to WikiLeaks (PayPal, Visa, etc.). In Mr. Watson’s case, a boycott on tourism in Costa Rica. Whether the impact by the boycotts can be assessed or not, the mere mention of the direct action serves as a reminder that people are aware of their valuable roles as consumers.
Should Mr. Watson end up in Costa Rica or Mr. Assange in Sweden, we can only wish that justice will prevail, and we will always remember that the most vital aspect they share in common is that their respective brands of activism have managed to change the world to a certain extent.