Why Lipstick on a Pig Outshines US Case Against Assange

When the appallingly horrific saga of Julian Assange comes to an end, there’s sure to be a documentary in the making.

Who produces and directs it is one thing, and perhaps it will be Gabriel Shipton, Julian Assange’s brother – a renowned film and documentary maker himself – that will undertake the project. However, it’s inconceivable documentary makers and scriptwriters aren’t already scripting and plotting the Assange story.

Assange, through no choice of his own, has become one of the most important historical figures in modern history. He may not have set out to be one, but the circumstances and events of the past 15 years have transformed him into just that.

It's fair to conclude that Assange is the modern-day Nelson Mandela. While the circumstances and times may be different, the cause and the fight share similarities.

Like many historical figures of the ilk of Assange and Mandela, they inevitably write themselves into the pages of history. Last week, in a dramatic turn of events, another chapter in the Julian Assange story was written. What the world expected did not come to pass.

The UK Royal Court of Justice shocked the world by denying the US’s request to extradite Assange. The Court’s presiding Justices, Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Johnson, denied the Americans their man. The court was evidently not convinced by the assurances given.

Outside the court, following its decision, Assange's wife, Stella Assange, addressed a crowd of supporters. During her speech, she colorfully quipped that the Americans were trying to "put lipstick on a pig" with their relentless pursuit of her husband. As funny as the analogy is, it underscores the stark contrast between the image of a dolled-up pig and the convoluted, dubious extradition case against Assange.

Assange's legal saga has been a tortuous journey, filled with twists and turns, captivating and polarising the world. Since his dramatic eviction from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in April 2019, Assange has been held in Belmarsh Prison. His extradition case has sparked intense debate about press freedom, the role of whistleblowers, and the limits of government secrecy.

The US’s determination to bring Assange to America for trial has drawn criticism from numerous human rights organisations, journalists, and legal experts, arguing his prosecution sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom.

There’s great irony in Stella Assange’s description of the US extradition case against her husband, portraying it in the context of the phrase “putting lipstick on a pig.” The metaphor takes on a profound resonance.

While the image of a pig wearing lipstick, is humorous, it carries a simplicity and clarity that the Assange saga sorely lacks. It cuts through the legal jargon and political grandstanding, and offers a visual contrast that is understood.

A pig, in its natural state, represents authenticity and simplicity—qualities often lost in the labyrinthine corridors of international law and diplomacy. By attempting to "put lipstick on a pig," the US government is seen as trying to mask the ethical and legal shortcomings of its case against Assange with superficial justifications.

A pig wearing lipstick is far more appealing and attractive than how the Americans have presented their case.

The ongoing extradition proceedings against Assange highlight how legal and political systems can become mired in their complexities, losing sight of broader ethical and humanitarian considerations. The US’s pursuit of Assange is an exercise in overreach, seeking to punish a journalist for exposing uncomfortable truths.

The contrast in the metaphor reminds people of the importance of seeing things as they are, rather than getting lost in the pursuit of superficial fixes. Rather than expending immense resources on legal battles that ultimately erode fundamental freedoms, governments might be better served by focusing on transparency, accountability, and the protection of journalistic integrity.

Public perception of the Assange case has been shaped by many factors – media portrayal, political rhetoric, and individual biases. For many, Assange is a hero who exposed government corruption; for others, he’s a reckless provocateur who endangered lives by releasing sensitive information. The polarised views are further complicated by the intricacies of the legal arguments surrounding his extradition.

“Lipstick on a pig" cuts through these complexities with its inherent simplicity. It resonates on a visceral level, appealing to a basic human understanding of authenticity versus artifice.

Assange’s extradition isn’t just a legal battle; it is a litmus test that underpin democratic societies. It raises critical questions about the balance between national security and the public's right to know, the role of the press in holding power to account, and the extent to which governments can go to silence dissenting voices.

While the metaphor might appear trivial, it serves as a poignant reminder of the broader stakes and underscores the need for clarity, honesty, and a commitment to fundamental principles in the face of political and legal machinations.

Attempting to grapple with the fallout of the Assange case, the pig imagery calls for a return to core values and a rejection of superficial solutions.

The image may appear absurd when juxtaposed with the grave legal proceedings surrounding Assange, however, it offers a powerful critique of the current state of political and legal affairs.

As Stella Assange eloquently put it, the US government's efforts to extradite Assange is like putting lipstick on a pig—an endeavour far less appealing than facing the truth with honesty and courage and totally absurd.