Interesting contradiction in WashPo over Assange's nationalityEcuador has granted citizenship to fugitive WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the South American nation announced Thursday, in a bid to end his more than five-year stay at its embassy in London and resolve a protracted dispute with Britain.But a standoff continued with the British government, which rejected an Ecuadoran request that it grant diplomatic status to Assange, insisting instead that the Australian national must “leave the embassy to face justice.”
As noted by Shava Narad: Is he Australian or Ecuadorian?The entire conceit of William Branigin's story is that Assange has been granted Ecuadorian citizenship.
And yet, in the second paragraph of that story, he is referred to as "the Australian national".
Sloppy writing? Different meanings of words? Which is it, Bill?
Is it the British government's own term? If so, why no quotes?
Is "national" a concept independent of present citizenship?
Should the term be "Australian native" rather than "national"?
My own rumination is that this strikes me as similar to disputes over language and address in other contexts: is Taiwan "China" or not? Is Kashmir part of India or Pakistan? Is Ireland described as part of the British Isles (a matter over which I found myself in a surprisingly vigorous, and ultimately nonproductive, dispute not too distantly). Is a person of transgendered status referred to by their birth or present-preferred gender status?
Not the largest issue facing the world presently, but a curiosity.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ecuador-grants-citizenship-to-julian-assange-in-bid-to-end-london-embassy-standoff/2018/01/11/55a4f232-f6ec-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html