Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Politics

Wikileaks Party Making Questionable Deals In Attempt To Win Senate Seat 162

Posted by Soulskill
from the strange-bedfellows dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Party Making Questionable Deals In Attempt To Win Senate Seat

Comments Filter:
  • Again and Again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @07:34PM (#44625211) Homepage

    Once again Julian Assange shows that his primary focus is the elevation of Julian Assange.

  • by BrokenHalo (565198) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @07:50PM (#44625369)
    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.
  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @08:01PM (#44625445)

    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.

  • by xQx (5744) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @08:13PM (#44625535)

    They are actually. The Sex Party, The Pirate Party and The Wikileaks Party have very similar pro-civil-rights views.
    But they don't preference each other as 1,2 & 3.

    Preferencing stopped being about shared values a long time ago. It still is a *little* about shared values, but this year the primary opposition party (LNP) has preferenced their mortal enemy, the ALP, above all other parties.

    Preferencing strategy goes like this: If a party higher than me on the ticket gets votes but doesn't win, I get their votes.
    Preferencing negotiations go like this: "I'll put you down as "2" on my ticket, if you put me down as "2" on yours."

    So, preferencing for minor parties in reality works like this:

    Approach all the parties that you think will be popular, but not popular enough to actually win, and try to get as high as possible in their preferences.
    Try not to sell your soul in the process, or align with any parties that will cause you to loose face.

    The Wikileaks Party, who are new to politics forgot the last bit, and is now in damage control.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @08:20PM (#44625599)

    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

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @08:22PM (#44625625) Homepage Journal

    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:

    One way of beginning to understand privacy is by looking at what happens to people in extreme situations where it is absent. Recalling his time in Auschwitz, Primo Levi observed that "solitude in a Camp is more precious and rare than bread." Solitude is one state of privacy, and even amidst the overwhelming death, starvation, and horror of the camps, Levi knew he missed it.... Levi spent much of his life finding words for his camp experience. How, he wonders aloud in Survival in Auschwitz, do you describe "the demolition of a man," an offense for which "our language lacks words."...

    One function of privacy is to provide a safe space away from terror or other assaultive experiences. When you remove a person's ability to sequester herself, or intimate information about herself, you make her extremely vulnerable....

    The totalitarian state watches everyone, but keeps its own plans secret. Privacy is seen as dangerous because it enhances resistance. Constantly spying and then confronting people with what are often petty transgressions is a way of maintaining social control and unnerving and disempowering opposition....

    And even when one shakes real pursuers, it is often hard to rid oneself of the feeling of being watched -- which is why surveillance is an extremely powerful way to control people. The mind's tendency to still feel observed when alone... can be inhibiting. ... Feeling watched, but not knowing for sure, nor knowing if, when, or how the hostile surveyor may strike, people often become fearful, constricted, and distracted.

    [h/t Groklaw]

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175 [groklaw.net]

  • by GumphMaster (772693) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @08:38PM (#44625749)

    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.

  • by Type44Q (1233630) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @08:40PM (#44625759)

    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.

  • by xQx (5744) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @08:49PM (#44625805)

    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.

  • Re:Again and Again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by batkiwi (137781) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @09:03PM (#44625913)

    What does this have to do with Assange directly?He is only one of 7 wikileaks candidtates, and he is running in Queensland.

    This story is about preferences in New South Wales. The wikileaks candidates in NSW are Kellie Tranter and Alison Broinowski.

  • by Shavano (2541114) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @09:06PM (#44625941)

    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.

  • Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Presto Vivace (882157) <marshall@prestovivace.biz> on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @09:35PM (#44626119) Homepage Journal
    Considering that Assange admires Ron Paul, mebbe this should not come as a surprise. Mebbe Assange makes a better publisher/trouble-maker than he does political leader.
  • Not a mistake (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dbIII (701233) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @09:51PM (#44626205)
    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.
  • by westlake (615356) on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @10:10PM (#44626345)

    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.

I have not yet begun to byte!

Working...