Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

So now it's inappropriate to bring up issues relating to Assange's character, associations and behavior in a thread about his possible run for elected office?

What is permissible; comments on his hairstyle and fashion sense?

Not at all. It is also permissible to comment about his devotion to transparency and the free flow of information. As long as it isn't information about him.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

...If declared he will not nominate. If he nominates he will not make the ballot. If he makes the ballot he will not be elected. If elected he will not claim his seat. If he claims his seat he will not be seated.

That last (if it comes to that) might well exclude Assange and his party from sitting in the senate.

An Australian senator Assange has to be sworn in - in person.

So if they do get a seat it will remain vacant until July 2014, where a Wikileaks Party nominee could take the seat (and subsequently resign and give up the seat to Assange if he returns to Australia). But the seat could also be cancelled due to the senator's absence.
Either way, it is an empty gesture to get yet more publicity for himself.

Oh, and let's not forget the funding the party can claim.

It works like this. Get your fanbois supporters to front some cash for a campaign fund. All you need do then is to secure 4% of the vote in the state you run in, and you can claim the lot back. It's tax free and safe from being seized or frozen. Pretty handy if your cash flow is being blocked across the globe.

The beauty of the scheme ...

He doesn't have to win his seat, just get 4% of the votes. He can then claim over $2 a vote back on campaign expenses. That's the potential to receive 100s of 1000s of dollars of lovely laundered legal cash care of the Aussie public purse.

Of course if he does win a seat he get $100k+ per year, plus expenses, plus allowances, on top of the campaign cost reimbursement.

All this and he doesn't even have to sit in the Senate.

[lionking]

Did you complain when Family First and the DLP received the same benefits?

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by lionking

Did you complain when Family First and the DLP received the same benefits?

No. Since I haven't been in the country for the last 15 years. I might have voted for the Australian Sex Party though.

At least they approached the election with the intent of putting someone in the seat they were contending.

It is a pretty handy rort for an organisation that is broke and is having difficulty raising funds - even though their candidate can't sit in the senate in the forseeable future...

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by lionking

There's another thread about Assange. This thread's about Assange's senate bid

And his qualifications and experiences are off limits because...?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

ETA: I mean, Assange must be the first politician in history to get a magical exemption from having considered his personal history, professional activities, and sexual peccadilloes. What kind of wondrous man this Assange must be, that in a thread about his candidacy, we must perforce ignore the candidate's body of work.

Just discuss the great and powerful Assange, ignore that man behind the curtain.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Not at all.

It is also permissible to comment about his devotion to transparency and the free flow of information. As long as it isn't information about him.

It is also permissible to comment about his devotion to transparency and the free flow of information, as long as it isn't information about him.

Was that what you were trying to say?

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Silhouette

He had a blog, IQ.ORG, and I found this link to it: http://web.archive.org/web/200710200...http://iq.org/ I thought it was an interesting read and it gives some insight into who he is.

Quote:

Mon 17 Jul 2006 : Jackboots

If there is a book whose feeling captures me it is First Circle by Solzhenitsyn. To feel that home is the comraderie of persecuted, and infact, prosecuted, polymaths in a Stalinist slave labor camp! How close the parallels to my own adventures!

Mercy, mercy me.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Was that what you were trying to say?

Well, we certainly don't want those periods creeping in there. Do we.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Was that what you were trying to say?

Sentence fragments. Perfectly cromulent.

Grammar nazism. Last refuge of the scoundrel.

[EHocking]

It looks to me that the intent of applying for candidacy is entirely self serving and nothing to do with "keeping the bastards honest".

Claims such as, "...a WikiLeaks party would advance WikiLeaks' objectives of promoting openness in government and politics, and it would combat growing intrusions on individual privacy."

This is such an obvious smoke screen attempting to disguise the actual reason behind the Wikileaks party senate bid.

Mr Assange believes "the building of political opposition to the persecution of a media organisation" will lead the US Department of Justice to drop its espionage investigation.

[Orphia Nay]

Jemima Khan, who helped fund Assange's bail, posts a ripper of an article about how she's changed her opinion of him.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/...ted-his-allies

"The problem is that WikiLeaks – whose mission statement was “to produce . . . a more just society . . . based upon truth” – has been guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion."

"It may well be that the serious allegations of sexual assault and rape are not substantiated in court, but I have come to the conclusion that these are all matters for Swedish due process and that Assange is undermining both himself and his own transparency agenda – as well as doing the US department of justice a favour – by making his refusal to answer questions in Sweden into a human rights issue. There have been three rounds in the UK courts and the UK courts have upheld the European Arrest Warrant in his name three times. The women in question have human rights, too, and need resolution. Assange’s noble cause and his wish to avoid a US court does not trump their right to be heard in a Swedish court."

"We all want a hero. After WikiLeaks released the infamous Collateral Murder video in 2010, showing US troops gunning down a dozen civilians in Iraq, I jokingly asked if Assange was the new Jason Bourne, on the run and persecuted by the state. It would be a tragedy if a man who has done so much good were to end up tolerating only disciples and unwavering devotion, more like an Australian L Ron Hubbard."

[trustbutverify]

From the same New Statesman article:

Quote:

The film wasn’t in the competition at Sundance, as Gibney is a well-known film-maker and it already has a distributor, but that didn’t stop the WikiLeaks account from tweeting: “Anti-#WikiLeaks doc ‘We Steal Secrets’ steals no prizes at Sundance as film is rejected in all 31 categories”.
The problem with Camp Assange is that, in the words of George W Bush, it sees the world as being “with us or against us”. When I told Assange I was part of the We Steal Secrets team, I suggested that he view it not in terms of being pro- or anti-him, but rather as a film that would be fair and would represent the truth. It would address, directly, the claims of his critics, which needed to be included so that the film could be seen as balanced and could reach people beyond the WikiLeaks congregation. He replied: “If it’s a fair film, it will be pro-Julian Assange.” Beware the celebrity who refers to himself in the third person

So, let's see here. Saint Julian views the "adventure" of his life running along similar lines as work slaves in Stalin's "re-education" camps, thinks his critics in the media are part of a Jewspiracy and "fair" coverage of Wikileaks requires that his ass be properly kissed- or else.



Bet he wins in a landslide.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by EHocking

It looks to me that the intent of applying for candidacy is entirely self serving and nothing to do with "keeping the bastards honest".

Claims such as, "...a WikiLeaks party would advance WikiLeaks' objectives of promoting openness in government and politics, and it would combat growing intrusions on individual privacy."

This is such an obvious smoke screen attempting to disguise the actual reason behind the Wikileaks party senate bid.

Mr Assange believes "the building of political opposition to the persecution of a media organisation" will lead the US Department of Justice to drop its espionage investigation.

Oh, second motive?

To run Wikileaks by proxy abusing the protection of Parliamentary privilege to avoid legal ramifications of disclosure.

The beauty of this lurk is that Wikileaks doesn't even have to publish anything. Assange can use the Hansard record and political journalists to do the recording and broadcasting for him.

Assange : What I'll do in the senate.

The WikiLeaks founder also plans to be a ''fierce defender of free media'' if elected to the Senate, using parliamentary privilege to break court suppression orders and other ''excessive constraints'' on free access to information.
...
Asked whether he would use parliamentary privilege to overcome court-imposed gag orders, he replied: ''Absolutely.''

A current example of abuse of the system are the allegations by Nick Xenophon directed at a Catholic priest.

Even the Australian Civil Liberties Association describes it as abuse.

Legal groups have questioned his use of parliamentary privilege, with the Australian Civil Liberties Association criticising Xenophon for abusing the privilege.

“Those privileges are intended to protect lawmakers while they discuss legislative issues. Since the Hepworth allegations have no bearing on legislation, the senator’s invocation of his privilege was the height of irresponsibility,” the association says in a statement.

... and of course, the target of these allegations will be vilified in the press with few options of a right to reply if he feels he's been defamed, while the accuser - flinging out any old accusation he feels like - is protected from legal proceedings.