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."
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
Once again Julian Assange shows that his primary focus is the elevation of Julian Assange.
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.
Yes. Who cares what politicians do? If Wikileaks stands for anything, it stands for "Politicians make mistakes, let's just all move on and ignore them. So what?"
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
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
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.
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 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.
Australian Aborigines have never been of white skin. Only 2.5% of the Australian population is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (down from 100% in 1787) but were not counted for federal government purposes until 1967 when Section 121 of our constitution was amended. The top five ancestries are English, Australian, Irish, Scottish, and Italian making up more than 68% of the respondents (http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0?opendocument&navpos=220) The last overtly "White Australia Policy" legislation favouring white-only immigration was not dismantled until 1973.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
They are the Australian gun lobby (like the US NRA sort of) and not regarded very well. I always put them last along with the "fathers who don't want to pay child support" and the anti immigration groups.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.