Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Party Making Questionable Deals In Attempt To Win Senate Seat
An anonymous reader writes "The Brisbane Times notes that 'Julian Assange's Wikileaks Party has come under fire for directing its preferences to the Shooters and Fishers Party and the white nationalist Australia First Party ahead of both major parties and the Greens in the NSW Senate race. Australia First's policies include reducing and limiting immigration and "abolishing multiculturalism." The chairman of Australia First, Jim Saleam, is a former neo-Nazi who was convicted in the late 1980s of organizing a shotgun attack on the home of an Australian representative of the African National Congress. WikiLeaks candidates in NSW include human rights activist Kellie Tranter.' The Wikileaks Party blamed the outcome on administrative problems. This is drawing further criticism."
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
They think it don't be like it is,
But it do.
What is best? Stay in home and hoping that no bored neighbourn will kill you, or actually go out, make mistakes, and, guess what, be a human being? A Man? But not THE man of course.
Black countries for blacks.
Asian countries for Asians.
White countries for everyone.
Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Yeah political influence has done Assange well in his little room at the Ecuadorian Embassy. I can see them trying anything to get political influence anywhere, so this doesn't surprise me one bit.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Once again Julian Assange shows that his primary focus is the elevation of Julian Assange.
Who's the patsy? Who's the player?
Okay, two, TWO questions!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Once again Julian Assange shows that his primary focus is the elevation of Julian Assange.
We're talking politics here - getting allies.
If you really think that the WikiLeaks party or any party that's not mainstream can walk in and achieve their goals on their own, then you are sadly mistaken.
These parties they are teaming up with may not be the most PC parties out there, but they do have a presence in the Australian Legislature. And one can get things done with friends.
So, the WikiLeaks party can have their one or two people screaming in the wind or have some political clout - even if it means teaming up with Nazis or what have you.
And let's face it, WikiLeaks isn't exactly the best organization to be associated with these days. They don't have too many friends.
As far as Assange is concerned, is he even involved with WikiLeaks anymore?
You see weird alliances all the time in politics. Sometimes two different organizations have the same goal and what better thing to do than to team up and achieve it.
Since when hasn't one person or another been questioning wikileaks decisions. And for a variety of things.
Anyway, I'm an American. I don't care about or understand British politics.
I really don't understand why Julian Assange is running for Senate in the coming election. Even if (somehow) he were to score sufficient votes/preferences to get in, there is no way he can ever take his seat. In order to do that, he has to be sworn-in in person.
If (as is likely) he does poorly in the election, that will amount to a slap in the face for both himself and Wikileaks. His dignity and personal standing are already in question, so I fail to see the purpose in a hollow election campaign.
No surprise here. All the minor parties are doing the same thing. The Australian sex party is preferencing Pauline Hanson's Australia First Party ahead of Greens.
- No, I am not your imagination
I am an Australian voter and I can't imagine a wikileaks voter following a how to vote card. If they have somebody handing them out in East Brunswick I might pick one up for the lulz, but thats all.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.
While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach -- as evidenced by the overreaction to Snowden, Manning, Assange, etc., then it's pretty much a given that you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point. Honor is a luxury in war; If your oppoents don't have it, then they'll just use yours against you.
Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
He's doing it to pimp his new movie.
Maybe if he is elected to the Senate he gets some diplomatic status which will enable him to leave the UK.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Neo-Nazis? How much worse can they get?
I'm beginning to the Assange is really nothing more than a self-centered anarchist bent on using people.
Which of course, makes him eleventy-billion times more evil than the worst police state.
You are welcome on my lawn.
... only to be arrested and extradited to Sweden from Australia.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Is that you can measure success by the number of compromising positions you take.
Honor is a luxury in war...you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
NO! Honor is not a commodity to be traded. Never lower yourself to the level of what you fine questionable and definitely don't justify it by believing it's for the "greater good." Your words read like justification for "enhanced interrogation."
captcha: chivalry
For those who dont follow Australian politics, the Greens are also in on the whole "yay white people, boo everyone else" thing.
Amateur politicians doing amateur things is not as dangerous as a global police state.
I'd gladly read a story every day about what a knucklehead Julian Assange is, if I could be certain that an out-of-control surveillance apparatus is not upskirting every conversation everybody has, even those of the most private, personal nature.
Fuck Julian Assange. He's nothing, nobody. He's not 1/100th as significant as the least of the leakers.
Today, we have a story about a long-time blogger - a serious person, doing seriously good work - is closing down a widely-read web site because she can no longer expect privacy in communications, in the United States of America. We had the founders and operators of an encrypted mail system, Lavabit, close their business and not be able to even say why under threat of prosecution.
Who knew that Aaron Schwartz was so far ahead of his time, now that important online businesses are following his lead.
If you can not be private, you cannot, in any sense, be free.
Let's see what Primo Levi has to say on the matter:
[h/t Groklaw]
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175
You are welcome on my lawn.
Who, Wikileaks? Since when? They're about anonymity of informants, and information on crimes and corruption being out in the open.
Does that really apply in this case? This is a political race in Australia. Manning and Snowden have nothing to do with it, different issues, different country.
It seems to be they may be making bad deals, for no good reason, that will cost them in the future. At the very least it seems that they may marginalize themselves and alienate the very groups that you would expect to be natural allies.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It won't. There are already Australian politicians facing court on criminal charges at the moment, and Assange certainly will not be granted any kind of immunity, given the record of both major parties when it comes to licking the ass of the US government.
He would make a dive for Ecuador and we would never hear from him again.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
You'd have to vote for the Sex Party and the Shooters Party right! Gotta be a great weekend right there! Leaking on the the wikis not-so-much.
There is no requirement in Section 42 of the Australian Constitution that the oath or affirmation of office be taken in Australia or that the Governor-General takes it in person. The GG can take Assange's oath in London personally or appoint someone else to do it. Unusual but possible.
If Julian Assange were elected he could wait until the 1 July date for taking up his seat and resign his Senate position (Section 19) or wait for it to be declared vacant (Section 20). Then under Section 15 another Wikileaks Party member would be appointed to hold the seat. Typically this would be the next highest-polling Wikileaks candidate but need not be. The Wikileaks Party is running three candidates in the Senate election for Victoria so they will have a fall back option.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Does that really apply in this case? This is a political race in Australia. Manning and Snowden have nothing to do with it, different issues, different country.
If you've been following what's been taking place in Australia over the past decade or so, and if you're not a scumbag shill (mind you, I'm not saying you aren't), then you'd know that they have everything to do with it.
There is a legal requirement for him to physically attend when the senate sits. There is a limited number of sittings that he can miss before his seat is decalared vacant. (I think you covered this)
I expect his strategy is to get elected, then call on the Australian government / Australian Military to explain how they are sitting idly by while the UK and USA prevent an Australian Senator from executing his elected responsibilities.
Anyone who is actually voting for wikileaks will likely be well informed and voting below the line anyways.
For those not familiar with australian voting, we have preferential instant runoff first past the pole voting.
You can either vote "above the line," where you select ONE party, and that party decides how your preferences fall if they don't win a seat, or you can vote "below the line," where you number individual candidates "1, 2, 3.....".
If a Senator retires or dies in office, he is replaced by a member of his own party. It could be as simple as Assange trying to win a seat on his name recognition, then substitute the 2nd name on his parties' ticket.
- Chuq
The GG can take Assange's oath in London personally or appoint someone else to do it.
Maybe she could ask the Queen to pop around to the Ecuadorian embassy on the way back from visiting the grandkids or something.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
It has everything to do with the freedom to communicate.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
If you're fighting for principles, you don't align yourself with people of radically opposed principles because that's not going to help you accomplish anything. So we're either faced with the idea that the Wikileaks party feels that its principles are closer to the Hunters and Fishers and the white nationalists than either major party or the Greens.
The other possibility is that they're not fighting for principles.
I dare say Her Majesty could invite herself around as the GG is only acting in a capacity as Her Majesty's representative.
I would not be surprised to see a challenge under Section 44(i) if he were elected. The section declares invalid as a Senator any person who
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:
(Italics are mine).
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Please feel free to cite any references to whatever idea you are alluding to. You're implying that Manning and Snowden are somehow involved with the political race in Australia but have nothing to back it up. This google search shows nothing.
http://google.com/search?hl=en&q=snowden%20politics%20australia
http://google.com/search?hl=en&q=manning%20politics%20australia
What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. If you don't live by the rules you profess, you're a hypocrite.
entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power
Yeah
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Can someone explain what is so Objectionable about the Hunters and Fishers party that it needed to be grouped with an obviously racist white nationalist organization? I'm not really finding any thing all that objectionable about the hunters and fishers.
You mad
Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.
While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach -- as evidenced by the overreaction to Snowden, Manning, Assange, etc., then it's pretty much a given that you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point. Honor is a luxury in war; If your oppoents don't have it, then they'll just use yours against you.
Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
This has got to be sarcasm. Read what you just wrote and pretend it's the US Government making that statement.
Every underdog movement since the 1st century AD has made alliances with parties and groups they otherwise despise. If this were not a fair tactic, the overdog would never get displaced. Being outraged at this is thew mark of a total naive and frankly, a historically illiterate. It is important to read about history or at least watch some shows on TV or something so you don't end up looking like a dope when you speak.
This is just how change happens.
Which of course, makes him eleventy-billion times more evil than the worst police state.
Strawman much?
What it does do, though, is make Assange not worth listening to.
The rumour is that the "mistake" is that the wikileaks party doesn't like the greens as much as the greens think they should. Assange is on the record as liking many of Ron and Rand Paul's ideas which are the antithesis of what the greens stand for but some of those preferenced stand for.
So nothing to see here, and the "mistake" and "administrative error" are just a way to try to brush it all off after the fact without a heated argument.
I doubt he would make that trip alone.
He's already made his game known.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Yes, see also Assange's comments about Ron Paul. Wikileaks are not the Greens.
Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
Yeah, sometimes you just gotta slap people around a little bit... knock some sense into 'em...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
The end justifies the means.
The perfect Godwinism never mentions the National Socialist German Workers' Party by name. It simply expresses its core values in their purist form.
Welcome to politics. I see you're new here...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Oh really? Are they making questionable, backroom deals, playing dirty politics, and generally PLAYING THE GAME as its PLAYED EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE since civilization was created? Oh, the humanity! Maybe they dress like a pack of rabid south african body builders wearing creepy breathing masks and plotting revenge on the world so we can get the full effect of their evil.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Anyone who is actually voting for wikileaks will likely be well informed and voting below the line anyways.
But what does it tell the voter who reads above the line and discovers some very uncomfortable truths about the alliances you have made. Is he voting Wikileaks or he is voting Fascist? Which is the real you?
I see you are trying to "persuade" me by threatening to call names. Not very persuasive. I've seen shills use that tactic. (Mind you, I'm not saying you are.) Feel free to provide any facts and arguments to bolster your position that you care to add.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I voted for them Yesterday, (i.e. filled in my postal vote). Numbered all boxes below the line 1 to 110. Wikileaks, then the Pirate Party....
While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach [...] you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point.
It's not even that in some cases. Politics is about brokering compromise to best achieve your goals. Because the game is so competitive it leads to the seemingly ironic situation that you can best achieve your goals by helping those whose goals are far away from yours, with the aim of cutting out those who are closest to you. This works because those closest to you in ideals are your biggest competitors.
Who's listening to Assange? I didn't know he was even saying anything.
My interest is in the revelations coming from people other than Assange. They are worth listening to, or the government's security apparatus wouldn't be working so hard to make them go away.
If the things Snowden has said aren't true, wouldn't you expect the government to say, "That's not true!" Instead, you get stuttering and lying and retractions and more lying and silence and misdirection. And a worldwide effort to get their hands on the whistleblowers for prosecution.
That's the best indication that the leaks are true.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you really suggesting that they have to make "questionable deals" in an Australian election, because somehow "NSA SNOWDEN POLICE STATE BUSH SWEDISH RAPE!!!!1111!!!ONE!1!"?
Assange's "questionable deal" was struck with the government of Ecuador. Pray tell, what does the Wikileaks' party preferential support for thugs and convicted criminals in a senate election in NSW have to do with any of that?
By directing preferences away from the Greens, Wikileaks improves its chances. Only marginally, but I suppose the rationale for the decision was that "every little bit helps."
The surprise here is that they didn't come clean on it, given the irony that creates. ...and yes, Wikileaks is only assumed to be a left-wing party, which is an error. Libertarianism is right-wing.
The VOTER decides the preferences, i.e. it's the voter who writes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on, not the parties. All the parties do is print how-to-vote cards that get handed out near the polling stations. It's always been the voter who decides preferences, so if you the voter can't be arsed doing a little research and making your own decisions, and are happy to fill out your ballot according to your party's how-to-vote card, then you deserve the consequences.
Admittedly the senate ballot paper is a pain to fill out completely (numbering every box rather than put a "1" above the line, as most major parties would have you do), but fer crissakes, it's only once every few years, and worth a little research and mental arithmetic.
That reminds me - I should find out if the MHR ballot is optional preferential - that's the best system - you can vote 1 for your preferred candidate, then further numbering is optional.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Australia, has two government branches. The House of Representatives (where the leader of the majority is called the Prime Minister), and the Senate.
Laws must be passed by both houses.
For each house there is two ways to vote:
1. Number each candidate in the order of your preference
2. Number "1" for the candidate of your choice, and accept that candidates pre-selected preferences.
For the House, people vote for the candidate for their local district, so you might have 4-8 candidates to choose from. Option one is more common.
For the Senate, there are 6 seats per state, and everyone votes for every candidate for that state. As an example, there are 58 candidates for the QLD senate seats. Therefore most people are lazy and pick option 2 for the senate. Therefore preferences are a bigger deal for the senate, and it's not uncommon for seats to be won due to preference deals.
For the House, the counting system works like this:
1. For each candidate, count a vote for each voting card that lists them as a 1st preference.
2. For the candidate with the lowest number of votes, remove them from the running.
3. Redistribute the votes for the removed candidate to the next highest preferenced candidate.
4. Repeat 2-3 until you have one candidate.
For the Senate, the counting system works like this:
1. Count up the number of people on the electoral roll, divide by the number of available seats, plus 1. This is the quota.
2. For each candidate, count a vote listing them as a 1st preference.
3. If a candidate reaches the quota, they are elected. Any additional votes for this candidate are distributed by preference.
4. If at the end of a round of counting, no candidate has reached the quota, remove the candidate with the least votes, and re-distribute the votes according to preference.
5. If there is only one candidate left, and a seat is remaining, they are elected to the final seat. (This handles the fact that you rarely get 100% voter turnout)
6. Repeat 3-5 until all seats are filled.
Please note the subtle difference.
Wasn't the 'questionable tactics' that governments are taking -- in order to win against terrorism 'at any cost' -- the exact thing Snowden and Manning are trying to stand against?
If we're going to abandon all principles to win, what's the point in fighting, again?
That didn't take long, did it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/wikileaks-senate-candidate-leslie-cannold-quits/4903084
What's good for the proper goose is good for the propagander.
Cold Fjord, you are a master in reducing everything into its constituent parts and from there "failing" to take the overarching relations between these constituent parts into account. No, Snowden and Manning have nothing to do directly with politics in Australia. They both are indicative though of the rot that pervades politics in so called civilised societies. On the surface, the citizens in a civilised society are in power, but in practise it is the largely autocratic, political caste that determines the fate of the non-political castes. To become an aacepted part of the political caste, you need to accept their "etiquette". Maybe that is the way primate societies are supposed to work, but humanity can't let go of sugar coating their machinations under the pretense of having higher principles and ideals.
# touch universe # chmod +rwx universe #
Wikileaks are about creating the appropriate transparency in organisations. What in that is contra-indicated by racists, gun-nuts and Nazis? Apart from the latter, where the problem was exacerbated in WWII by the lack of transparency in government, nothing.
Unless you're going to say holding certain views on sex, race or religion precludes being worried about hiding criminal acts by government and large institutions that are not able to be prosecuted by a member of the public, you're just going "Oh, no, you can't ask THEM, they have the wrong thoughts!!!".
"Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good."
This is what NWO is about. It's a shame the massive don't understand the scalability of this idea.
But hey, who can project his life and acknowledge the greater good on a scale bigger than his own life? Surely not the regular John Doe.
"Assange is on the record as liking many of Ron and Rand Paul's ideas which are the antithesis of what the greens stand for"
1) The things Assange agrees with are NOT the ones that the Greens are standing in opposition of.
2) The things the Greens stand in opposition of are the same ones that the Rands want that Assange wants to destroy.
becomes corrupted after entering politics.
In other news: fire is hot and water is wet.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I find it amusing that people who think they are against an oppressive government think white nationalists could possibly be political allies.
how they are sitting idly by while the UK and USA prevent an Australian Senator from executing his elected responsibilities
Maybe HE can explain how the US and UK are preventing him from doing anything? The only people who want to spend some time with him are some investigators in Sweden. Once he gets over himself and addresses their questions, Sweden's done with him, right? That's it. The only entity preventing Julian Assange from doing anything is Julian Assange.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Aussie connections: Assange is an Aussie and the founder of WL. Manning gave his info to WL, WL provided legal aid and advice to Snowden. Assange is not wanted for any crimes in Australia. Our current PM was foreign minster at the time of the Manning leak, he was one of the few notable (western) politicians who supported Assange's "free press" right to publish leaks, and reiterated his right to diplomatic aid as an Aussie citizen. If for nothing else, KRuddy deserves credit for the way he spoke up for Assange and the traditional notions of "freedom of the press", extra credit because the leaks were also politically embarrassing to himself..
Contrast this with how John Howard threw David Hicks and the rule of law under the bus when it was convenient.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's also possible they are telling the truth in that it was a clerical error, the elections are still a few weeks away, plenty of time to correct it. Preferences are a powerful tool the smaller parties/independents use to exert influence on the major parties even if they don't get a seat in parliament. The greens (a significant 3rd party) are the obvious choice for WL, I think they were genuinely surprised to read in the official records that they had apparently been snubbed.
Preference deals are a matter of public record before the election and cannot be changed after the election starts, but the strategic considerations in preference deals are complex and can make for very strange bedfellows. A while back there was a "family first" senator (creationist nutter) who was elected with a 2% primary vote, the rest of his majority came from preference deals. His nickname in parliament was Mr 2%, and on more than one occasion he held the balance of power in a divided senate. The only way preferences can be politically nullified is if a candidate is certain they will attract more than 50% of the vote.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Have you considered the obvious? - That Ron Paul and his followers are much closer in ideology to the Australian Greens than they are to either the Australian Neo-Nazi's or the Australian Theocrats.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You know, that's often the argument the government puts forward justifying these programs. They have to spy on everyone to catch the terrorists! Its only to do a greater good that they do bad things.
So basically its a BS argument.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Nobody seriously expects him to win, I doubt he expects to win himself. However by forming a political party and entering the race he can have an influence on the other parties by directing his preferences towards or away from them in the election. Even if WL came last their presences may still have a deciding role as to who wins, as I said elsewhere, the political strategies involved in preference deals are complex, WL is claiming it was a just a typo and they intend to direct their preferences toward the greens, plenty of time to correct the public record.
I rate the story at 3.5, a mildly amusing storm in a teacup, I got a lot more entertainment from last week's "suppository of wisdom" story.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes, that was the plot of one of the old Tom Baker Doctor Who serials.
In Australia the two big political parties are indomitable.
If you want to have a crack, then you have to be prepared to do some deals and I'd rather independent politicians deal with each other rather than sit in the pockets of the banks, the real estate industry, the mining companies and all the plethora of nasty little lobby groups.