Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange To Run For Australian Senate
New submitter bozman8 writes "Announced recently on social networking platform Twitter, Julian Assange has found a way to run for the Upper House of the Australian Senate, despite being detained under house arrest in Britain. Along with Julian's candidacy, WikiLeaks has announced that they are going to run a nominee against current Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her local electorate."
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY VOTE!
Go Assange! I wonder if they would trust him with secret documents!
Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that rot.
Wait... what?
Did I miss something? I feel like I've missed something really big.
I'd vote for the pair.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
we should draft CmdrTaco for PM!
Twitter: @dainsanefh
Theres' gonna be an Oz Spring or a lot of harassment cases followed by mass deportation post voting..
I'll vote for him.
Fair enough. If they're going to accuse the man of having the lowest character, they might as well give him the office that goes with it.
If elected he'll have immunity (or so I think, I don't know Australian law) and can be rid of the false charges against him (for a few years, anyway). Knowing Australia, though, I'd be surprised if they don't vote for Cthulhu instead.
Australia, don't fuck this up.
I live in the next electorate across from Ms Gillard's electorate, so I won't get the privilege of helping stir the pot... but if I could I'd definitely vote for anyone promising the level of transparency Wikileaks represents.
The other important point here is that Julia has done a shameful job of supporting a high profile Australian in trouble, pretty much towing the pro USA line (Australia traditionally lives in the US of A's pocket) which means she hasn't acknowledged the important community service roll that whistle blower organisations such as Wikileaks fill in a open and honest democracy. Good luck to Julian, he's a national hero!
He has no chance of winning but the number of votes he gets will be noticed and may influence policy. Runing for the senate in Australia is not the Billionaire's game that it is in the USA. Last election I recall something like six canditates standing on shooting and fishing issues in my state, as well as a few other single issue canditates. You could just about use the senate ballot paper as a tablecloth.
I hope he runs in Vic. I'd vote for him.
The senate has proportional voting.
Everyone ranks all the candidates, then they start counting. As soon as a candidate has enough to get elected, any further votes move to the second preference. You can end up with some funny results if everyone puts the major party they don't like last.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
most people in Oz see him either as a criminal, or some nutter. A senate seat requires a large number of votes across a single state, it just isn't going to happen, it's just hot air and crap.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Remember pauline hanson?
Yeah he's not that bad really, just a massive ego like most hackers. Compare to others running in politics
he's not that bad, look at bob katter and his wing nut party. Remember Sir Jo from QLD back in the day? I do
and so does julian. Remember the publicity stunt of Peter Garret joining the labor party, where is he now?
More power to him, I'd certainly vote for him
He may have to wait a bit to try for the Senate.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Australian_federal_election it must by held by 30 November 2013. Whilst there is *some* possibility of it being called early, I wouldn't be holding my breath.
Ever stop to think
Being a British criminal has never kept anyone out of Australia, quite the contrary. ;)
And what better place than with all the other criminals that run the country?
I hope he wins.
I don't personally think there's a giant paranoid conspiracy out to get him but I hope he wins so we can shut up the conspiracy minded.
Plus for the massive disagreement I have with his approach to politics at least he's on the right side of history. Even if he is a scumbag rapist.
( Even if he is a scumbag rapist )
common you cant really believe that crap do you . . . .
it makes sense to be famous.
The Upper House of the Australian parliament is the Senate, "Upper House of the Australian Senate" doesn't make any sense.
The phrase is, "Come on", sometimes written "C'mon" for slangy effect.
(E.g.:) C'mon, don't tell me you can completely fuck up a phrase as common as that one!
The populists can get considrable support. Only for a short while, of course -- a society of Assanges, or at least run by Assanges, cannot last very long time. There are certain objective laws of nature (that includes human nature as well) and the utopists that ignore them are doomed to extinction.
You could just about use the senate ballot paper as a tablecloth.
I somehow miss-read tablecloth as toilet paper.
We have to vote on this coming Saturday, I hope it's both soft and strong.
Isn't that pretty much the exact thing you'd want. At least you get to vote on actual issues, as compared to "liberal" versus "conservative" like most of us. Where the liberals are about as liberal as the conservatives are conservative.
I somehow miss-read tablecloth as toilet paper.
Unless you have severe bowel problems, using the senate ballot paper as TP is overkill.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Controversial candidates, even popular controversial ones, don't win. So this isn't really anything to consider seriously.
But if it were, I would be against Assange being a member of any government - or any group that might be subject to whistleblowers, at that. Not because of any suitability, but because it would compromise his position as an independent helper of whistleblowers, and that position is far more necessary than any political office.
If Assange joins a government, a corporate board, or hell, even the board of a non-profit organization, and a whistleblower then wishes to disseminate inside information from this group, how could he trust Assange? As it is, if someone has to blow the whistle on Wikileaks itself, she'd have to find another organization to send information to. That's inevitable, but every additional organization Assange is involved in is an additional conflict of interest.
All his opponents have to do is run a campaign saying he;
was accused of rape in Sweden and has been under house arrest, (make him look like a criminal)
has not lived in Australia for 6 years (wiki says he hasn't lived in australia since starting with wikileaks [founded in 2006]), (make him look unaustralian)
released private diplomatic cables relating to Australia, (make him look like he doesn't care about australian national security)
and they'd get pretty easy boost.
He's not been getting any headlines recently.
He's IMPORTANT!
We MUST listen!
The whiney little bugger craves attention of any sort, this is just another publicity stunt for a third-rate creep.
Actually its quite funny. Given the amount of angst in the UK at the moment over perceived imbalances between US and UK extradition practices, I'd have thought he would prefer to get over to Sweden before he UK gets a scrap of paper off the US saying "Assange is a lying traitorous creep. Hand him over!". And we would. Unless of course, he actually IS guilty as hell of sex crime and knows it.
Otherwise, the worst he could expect from Sweden is a brisk birching and an instruction to go and roll in the snow for a while. And he may enjoy that....
Guess again. Andrew Wilkie, the infamous Australian intelligence whistleblower who was hammered in the press by the government of the day, is now one of the power-broker independent members in the federal lower-house.
I somehow miss-read tablecloth as toilet paper.
Remind me to never invite you to dinner.
I wasn't aware that anyone actually took those allegations seriously. They basically amount to a condom having broken and claiming that he intentionally broke the condom, or that he began having sex with them while they were asleep. IIRC, after originally issueing the warrants (or whatever) in Sweden, a higher up judge later dismissed it for lack of evidence, which was then later overturned by another higher up. These women were openly bragging about their relationship with him only days before filing charges, and only did so once they found out he was involved with both of them. They were both seen attending one of his speeches and comfortable watching (this is on video) a few days later. It's rather transparent that the US government (among others) are using BS sex-crime allegations to try and silence someone blowing the whistle on their corrupt practices. Try this, if you'd actually like to hear the other side of the story (that doesn't involve the political motivation to shut down wikileaks and scare off other whistleblowers).
How do you go from two women scorned to US government involvement being transparent?
Read this carefully. The US government can not take him out of Sweden PERIOD. He is required by extradition to be return to the UK FIRST.
It also shows just how little slashdotters know about pissing off women. They will stab you in the back if you scorn them by sleeping with other women and lying to them about it.
Also Sweden's Laws on rape are very very much in favor of Women. She can change her mind after the fact lie about it and still have you found guilty.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Oh trust me, I am aware. I've been arrested (case later dismissed) because of women lying about me, and even had to call the cops three months ago to explain how another girl I'd been involved with was trying to spoof emails to frame me for "harassment" in order to avoid paying me the money she owed me. But the US government has wanted to get Assange extradited to the US so they could try him under the Espionage Act ever since the Collateral Murder video. I don't see how they'll be able to do that just from this, maybe they think they can put more pressure on the Swedish government than the UK, or maybe they think discrediting him as a rapist or putting him in Swedish jail is satisfactory. Sure, I admit I can't prove it's part of an ochestrated smear campaign or conspiracy, but given the fact that the accusations are based on an apparently obscure and rarely used "surprise sex" law, the timing of the incidents, the fact that at least some people in the Swedish legal system wanted to just throw the case out when it originally happened (this is from memory, sorry I couldn't find a link), I think I'd have to be gloriously naive to think the US didn't play a role in all this, even if they weren't directly involved with the two women making the accusations.
If this is unreasonable, call me out on it, but honestly how can anyone take these charges seriously?
Correction, I was able to find the original news reports of the allegations against him being dropped and then reinstated.
Excuse me. It's still pretty early here and I'm still a bit sleepy and I can't find my reading glasses, but does that headline say, "Australian"?
What a weird wonderful world we live in.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Also if I'm not mistaken he is the only rapist on the Interpol list (or was it the European equivalant ?). Whatever.
It could indicate their might be an other reason he is on the list.
New things are always on the horizon
The irony is that I know virtually nothing about him.
Gently reply
gonna hate.
Ya, i know hes not been convicted yet, but lets say he wins, then is convicted.. that mean he loses his position?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If "we were all completely open about everything we have done that directly affected at least one other human" (and that definition leaves few deeds uncounted) then there might indeed be little war. There would be fascism instead, because information is power.
Transparency begets freedom when applied to those in power. When applied to private citizens, it destroys freedom. This is the nuance that some transparency absolutists have yet to understand.
It would be hilarious to get a copy of the "Hitler reacts" video sequence and morph-in Obama's face for Hitler's, keeping the little mustash of course. :D We could call ti "Obama Reacts to Assange Senate Candidacy".
LoL
In the US it's a major crime to interfere with a senator travailing back to the senate for the purpose of making a vote. I wonder if Australia has a similar law and if Assange plains on getting the fuck out of the UK this way?
Also the Swedish prosecutor who re-instated the charges, and who has been pushing them ever since, is a US CIA asset. In fact, he's the same attorney who defended the CIA during the "Extraordinary Rendition" torture trials in Sweden. He has a few other items in his CV and history which indicate a cozy relationship with the CIA.
Wouldn't he need to be able to actually BE in Australia in order for it to matter?
It may not be a big financial deal but considering he's wanted by one country and being detained by another tells me he hasn't got a shot in hell at actually doing what he's signing on to due.
If you ignore EVERYTHING else wrong that he's done, and just assume he's a shining star from his past (which already qualifies you as an idiot) ...
Then you have to be a real fucking moron to vote for someone who literally can not carry out his responsibilities because he's not even in the same country and has no idea when that will happen ... and hasn't lived there in fucking years anyway.
Appreciate his ideals or not, anyone voting for him is just telling the world how stupid they are for following ideals well past the point of practicality.
Attention whore seeks further attention by running for a political office he has no chance of winning ... while being detained ... in another country ... with warrents out from yet another ...
How many times does he have to do shit like this before you guys realize he has no interest in transparency and only is concerned with his fame.
The only difference between Assange and the guy I voted for is Assange is promising transparency and the guy I voted for promised more jobs ... and both of them have no intention of doing any more work on their campaign promises than required to get them re-elected.
Thinking this is anything else is just naive.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Julia Gillard is part of the Lower House, so if Assange is running for the Senate, they're not directly in competition with each other.
Assinate Assange can become first Ass in Aussie Senate.
He has no chance of winning [...]
They said that of Andrew Wilkie.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You could just about use the senate ballot paper as a tablecloth.
Pity the muggins who has to sort and count them. Last three elections that was my job. Handling 4000+ of them is back-breaking work, though knowing radix sort helps.
What would his platform be? "Like Ron Paul but with even fewer rules and moral obstacles!"
Isn't that pretty much the exact thing you'd want. At least you get to vote on actual issues, as compared to "liberal" versus "conservative" like most of us. Where the liberals are about as liberal as the conservatives are conservative.
Not really,
We get to vote for candidates, not issues unless there is a referendum. It's still a two horse race in Australia despite the balance of power in the senate being held by the greens. We have the Liberal party (supports business) or the Labor party (supports workers).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
1- the Australian Senate is elected on a proportional representation basis using the single-transferable vote (instant runoff) method. A good estimate is that he would need 5% or more of first preference votes in his state. If public opinion polls are correct that might be possible, depending on exchange of preferences.
2-even if convicted of a crime in Sweden, he could still be eligible to stand since, under section 44 of the constitution, only offenses against Australian law count against him. He is not bankrupt, so that also makes him eligible.
3- if convicted of a crime in Australia (and he did 12 months or more) he would be ineligible to stand but not ineligible to vote. He could even vote from prison.
3-if he did time he could lose his Senate seat under section 20 if he is absent from the Senate for more than 2 months without permission of the Senate. But this would get interesting since under section 15 his replacement must be appointed by the parliament of his state, conventionally from the same party (so he needs a running mate). If the state parliament broke convention I could see a High Court case coming.
Same here except I hear nothing but admiration. I wonder why you feel the need to lie?
The US government can "borrow" him from Sweden and there is evidence that the US government has already had the relevant talks with the Swedish government and judiciary to ensure that this happens with the minimum of fuss. i.e "they" are already applying the grease in Sweden to ensure that he does indeed end up in the USA after a brief stay in Sweden.
This is all due to a special arrangement that the USA has with Sweden that allows it to "borrow" people when they are wanted by the US government.
voters in Gillard's electorate don't give a flying fuck about assange or internet freedom or whatever. unless his party can lower their rates, improve their roads, etc better than Gillard, they're just pissing in the wind. twatter is just a shoutbox for retarded publicity stunts. and assange won't be able to do much for voters while he's locked up, so that won't go down well
move along... nothing to see here
I'm pretty sure even if Australia has that law, Australian law does not apply in the UK.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Never mind convicted, he was not even charged.
I'm pretty sure even if Australia has that law, Australian law does not apply in the UK.
That wasn't my point. It would be a major diplomatic issue if a sitting senator was not allowed to leave a country where he has not been charged with anything.
I saw the documentary "Wikileaks: Secrets & Lies" at SXSW, which seemed fairly unbiased, but Assange didn't come off well in it.
Politics is the only profession where you can cheat/loot people (poll promises/insider trading/front running etc) and yet you'll not be prosecuted/punished.
Go and start your own political party in your free time.
Casteism