Wikileaks Party Making Questionable Deals In Attempt To Win Senate Seat 162
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."
Again and Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again Julian Assange shows that his primary focus is the elevation of Julian Assange.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:All minor parties are teaming together (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
It's not about Assange, or Wikileaks (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [groklaw.net]
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Not a mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Well played. sir. I salute you. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.