Summary: Weak my mom says I'm cool hit-piece by AAP, Australian Associated Press.
AAP is 90% owned by News Ltd and Fairfax, the two major publishers in the country, who promote it as a national organization but have a massive commercial interest in the media status quo. The media status quo is threatened by Assange, who has been extremely vocal about the failures of journalism and would presumably seek to re-regulate this area to encourage alternative media.
As mass media is a strong ally of big business and established political groups, he fights really tremendously
big economic and political forces (his words, Cypherpunks, 2012).
I for one wish him the best of luck. It's time to move over, old guard. Let's get some socially and technically-informed discussion back in to Australian politics before it gets any more irrelevant.
I've not bothered reading the SMH (and by extension, The Age) online for a long time. The online version is weak, lazy journalism, incredibly (to my mind) even worse than The Daily Telegraph.
Check out www.smh.com.au now... More than a third of the articles are about celebrities, or are vapid commentary on meaningless issues. There's a bit of content, but nothing really groundbreaking. And today is a day when there is easy news, as an election was announced by the Australian PM.
The SMH used to be great. Not any more. Old media is indeed dying.
Worst of both worlds. To my mind, it seems to me that they have rudderless leadership, and lazy journalism. I severely doubt they know anything about the South West of Sydney, for instance. That would require leaving the North Shore occasionally :-)
So what do you read online then? I'm a displaced Melburnian living in the States and have been reading The Age online for ages, simply because it was the paper I use to read when I live there, many moons ago...
I've just discovered their Android App for the tablet. It gives a totally new experience to reading it online. I definitely feel more at ease reading the via the Android App than the online version.
I can't speak for Autralian media, but "old" media like the New York Times and the Washington Post in the US seem to still do well for themselves. Many big investigative pieces still come from newspapers, as most online-only outlets don't yet have the resources for that work. Newspapers are certainly less responsive (and the smaller papers are declining in quality, unfortunately), but for high-quality journalism the old guard has yet to be beat.
I used to enjoy reading SMH when I lived in OZ, about 10 years ago, I even kept up with smh.com.au when I returned but in the last 6 or 7 years I have probably checked it about 6 times and each time realised why i dont go there any more.
If you knew just how understaffed they were compared to even just a few years ago. The money left print media with the classifieds and they can't afford to pay for journalism (which was always a cost center) any more, everyone is doing about 8 jobs and just printing press releases. Combine that with inefficient layers of management fat from the good times and employees who haven't upskilled in decades (again, a product of the good times), and it's easy to see why small, digital teams are going to thump old media.
(obvious exception is the New York Times, who seem to be doing a great job)
If you think AAP hacks give a flying fig about the uber-politics of global news, wait until you meet one.
Mostly they're interested in filling their daily quota of pap. And scamming free feeds, every time I've ever dealt with AAP journos the subject of lunch or dinner at my expense has somehow come up.
Nice idea. Become a Senator and try for diplomatic immunity. Walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and wave goodbye to the police who have been waiting for him for the last umpteen months.
The legal wrangling could become quite complicated if he succeeded. If the voters in Oz realise how annoyed the UK government would be if he did this then that would help his odds even more.
For US residents I'll point out that Senate spots in Australia are won using a state based proportional system with multiple Senators for each of our 6 states and 2 territories. This means that independent and minority groups can often get 1 or 2 Senators into the upper house.
> Become a Senator and try for diplomatic immunity.
Being a Senator doesn't give you automatic immunity. Immunity is a privilege extended by the host country to a guest's diplomatic corps. It can be revoked at any time.
Neither of Australia's major parties is particularly fond of Assange and I don't think the UK would feel any compunction in refusing to extend immunity to Assange.
It'll be an uphill battle, as I can't see him doing a preference deal[1] with a major party. The Greens might prefer him, but I can't see the two major parties doing so. It will be a publicity coup though.
---------
[1] Explanation: A preference deal means a party agrees to place another party further up it's how-to-vote card, the order usually being determined by what the party thinks will deliver the most self benefit. In the Australian Senate, voters can either indicate their own preferences by numbering every square (typically 150 of them) in the bottom section of the ballot paper, or a single mark "above the line" in the top section, meaning they agree to vote according to the party's how-to-vote card. Most people do the latter, as it is quicker, requires less thinking and is far less arduous (a single number wrong means your vote is informal, and may not be counted). Consequently preference deals are key for minor candidates.
---
Edit: fixed error. Federal elections are not optional preferential.
For US residents I'll point out that Senate spots in Australia are won using a state based proportional system with multiple Senators for each of our 6 states and 2 territories. This means that independent and minority groups can often get 1 or 2 Senators into the upper house.
You've got that around the wrong way. The Senate is not proportionally worked out when determining Senator numbers. That's the House of Representatives. There are currently 76 senators, 12 from each State, and 2 each for the Northern Territory and the ACT.
Why do you think the UK wouldn't be able to arrest him if he was an Australian senator? Some IRA terrorists were elected to the UK parliament while in prison. They still had to stay in prison. (the UK changed their laws to prevent anyone running for election if they are currently in prison)
Sure, but it shows the UK government has no problem jailing UK parliamentarians. What makes you think they'd act differently for Australian parliamentarians?
Sure, but it shows the UK government has no problem jailing UK parliamentarians.
The British government would hardly protest British laws being applied to British citizens!
(Maybe you're thinking about some sort of separation of powers? Google suggests this isn't the case: British MPs can can be arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison, all while still in office. Apparently if the conviction is longer than 12 months, they are automatically (?) expelled from parliament.)
I think focussing on the Senate run as an effort to avoid extradition is missing the point.
It's two things. One is to actually try and do some good via a spot in the Senate. Cynicism might tell you that's not right/too simple. Ignore that feeling. Some people do actually have ideals.
Secondly, it's a bit of good old shit-stirring. Certainly something we need in Australian politics.
Australian Constitution, s16: "The qualification of a senator shall be the same as those of a member of the House of Representatives."
s34(i): "... must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such an elector ..."
Australians are allowed to be overseas electors only if they intend to return to Australia within 6 years.
I don't think a court could reasonably conclude that Assange's intention to return would be a serious intention, given that he is going to be under an effectively indefinite house arrest.
Even if he did get elected, he would eventually be evicted for failing to attend sittings.
(Of course, I am not a lawyer or an electoral commissioner).
The short of it is that being qualified to become such an elector is a broader category than actually being on the electoral roll - you don't need to be on the roll to run for the Senate, just meet the basic requirements in S93.
I still think a court would be asked to rule on the question of "intention to reside", which is what the whole thing revolves on.
Assange can wish to reside in Australia inside the 6 year deadline. But that's not the same as being realistically able to. In that case, he may be unable to form a legally meaningful intent.
Or the Act might be read in the sense that intent is intent, regardless of whether such an intent could ever be realised.
In either case, watch for this section to be rewritten after the election. Or even before.
The "intent to reside" requirement is in S94A, which limits who can apply to the Electoral Commissioner to be enrolled. But that's not the same thing as "qualified to become such an elector", which is governed only by S93 - basically you just need to be an Australian citizen over the age of 18 who isn't insane or been convicted of treason.
94A(1)(d) has the same rule: "the person intends to resume residing in Australia not later than 6 years after he or she ceased to reside in Australia."
And the argument would be the same one I outlined above.
I know the rule is in S94A, but that's the section that governs actually applying to be placed on the roll, which is not relevant to running for election.
The place that rule isn't is in S93, which is the relevant section.
S94 is the relevant section because it defines eligible overseas electors.
S94(1)(c) gives the 6-year rule and S94A(1)(d) restates it as part of the enrollment procedure.
The relevancy of S94 and S94A for overseas electors is established in Interpretation, 4(1): ""Eligible overseas elector" means an elector who is entitled under section 94 or 95 to be treated as an eligible overseas elector."
When did he leave Australia? He might run afoul of s95(1B):
"An application that is made after the elector ceased to reside in Australia must be made within 3 years after the day on which the elector ceased to reside in Australia."
If questions of residence are in consideration, you would think things would be complicated by his request for asylum from Ecuador. That certainly doesn't suggest he intends to return to Australia in 6 years.
Assange announced this in early 2012, then again late in 2012 and then again today to co-incide with the announcement of Australia's September 14 election.
So yes, by all means, let's give the same piece of news coverage for a a THIRD TIME. There's VALUE in that aggregation.
Neither major party really thinks much of Assange. There might be some feeble protests but in practice the UK would be in the same position they are now.
Who is talking about the Australian government? Nobody cares about the Australian government. It's the UK government that would be the target.
We can argue whether or not they would care any more, but given the amount of time senior UK politicians have already spent talking about what is ostensibly "just" a normal extradition case, and spent trying to undo the diplomatic uproar caused by ever-so-slightly hinting they might be able to legally enter the embassy by force, it'll at the very least be fun watching them squirm.
I don't think the UK government would be fussed either. If nothing else, they are legally required to arrest Assange if he leaves the Ecuadorean embassy, regardless of what title he has.
They may be legally required to arrest Assange if he falls in their laps or he happens to walk up to a police officer (though I'm not sure if there'd be any legal consequences if they failed to arrest him even then - I doubt it), but they most certainly are not legally bound to invest massive amounts of resources to make it happen.
UK police make judgement calls about how best to deploy police resources to enforce arrest warrants or chase down suspects or throw people out of the country every day.
It is naive at best to assume that the 24/7 guard kept on him has anything to do with legal obligations.
It could be "just" because it'd be embarrassing if he managed to leave due to the public profile of his case, but there's not really much room to doubt that the amount of police resources spent on him is political.
Two constables standing out front of the embassy is hardly "massive resources".
They know where Assange is. They know that the UK is obliged to arrest him. And they know that he has snubbed the English justice system which I imagine they feel a bit dark about.
Basically the amount of conspiracy theorising around the Assange case is getting flatly silly.
It's the HN/Reddit equivalent of truthers and birthers. An embarrassment.
> Two constables standing out front of the embassy is hardly "massive resources".
It is far more than they spend on a lot of people that are wanted. 24/7 means shifts, which means we're talking about 10+ people full time to have 2 people stationed there at any time.
I can think of any number of places where investing 10+ officers full time would do far more positive for society - including preventing serious crimes.
> And they know that he has snubbed the English justice system which I imagine they feel a bit dark about.
So in other words: He is not being treated as everyone else. He's being singled out for political reasons.
Maybe there's nothing more to it than that, as I've already stated.
> Basically the amount of conspiracy theorising around the Assange case is getting flatly silly.
Ad hominems don't increase the validity of your own arguments.
I don't know if Assange is guilty or not. I can tell from what he has admitted that he acted like a total douche, but not whether or not he committed a crime.
What I do know, is that the behaviour I've seen from the prosecution is bizarre enough that I fully understand his reaction - whether he is guilty or not.
You've not provided a single argument to counteract that. Your arguments repeatedly focus on semantics or details that don't make the slightest bit of difference to addressing the blatant ways in which the prosecution of this case differs from the norm.
That does not mean there's a conspiracy. It doesn't even necessarily mean that there's anything wrong going on. Maybe it's "just" a boneheaded prosecutor. That does not help Assange, and that does mean that there's every reason to keep asking the question of why they consistently fail to answer the questions around this case truthfully (such as their blatantly false claim that they can not question him outside of Sweden).
Yes it's expensive to keep tabs on Assange but the Met (London's police force) has about 20,000 active officers. You're talking about 0.05% of their manpower. It's not ideal but it's really not that big a deal for them. And obviously it's political but why does that invalidate it as a reason?
What you seem to be suggesting is that the UK should be deliberately lax in fulfilling it's treaty obligations (that is provide resources they know are insufficient). Yes they might be able to technically meet their obligation without actually keeping tabs on Assange but do you really think that the Swedish (and presumably US) governments are going to be happy about that?
It's politics but politics isn't intrinsically bad either in general or in this case specifically for the UK. On the contrary, not pissing off Sweden (and the US presumably) sounds like something worth investing a small amount of resources in. Otherwise who knows what might happen when the UK next want something from Sweden (or the US)?
On the other side, what reason do they have to do what you suggest? The British public don't really care one way or another about Assange right now. Sure if you ask them whether it's a good use of money they'd probably say no but the strength of feeling isn't such that there is any domestic political capital at stake and that's unlikely to change (we've got far bigger problems than Assange and our budget situation isn't going to be resolved by reassigning 0.05% of one of the 40-odd police forces in the UK).
Internationally most of the UKs allies seem to either not care at all, not care much so default to supporting the treaty obligations (if in doubt you don't say break the law) or be positively anti-Assange. Those countries who are pro-Assange generally aren't countries for who the UK is likely to piss of Sweden and in particular the US to curry favour with.
I imagine he gets a bit more attention than usual because he's considered a flight risk. Also, unlike (I presume) other wanted individuals, they do know exactly where he is; they just can't get to him.
I'm what you would call a Sydney Anglican - characterised by a largely conservative worldview. The only party I can see that is worth voting for, ironically, is The Greens.
Check out the Sex Party. Despite the stupid name, they're actually a civil liberties party - equality for all, privacy, net neutrality, that sort of thing. At least at the last federal election they were.
Meh, the greens are a gimmick party. Even the democrats were a gimmick party - their slogan was for a long time not even about their own party ('keep the bastards honest'). I'd much rather the Sex Party get the last senate seat than the DLP (who nabbed it in Vic last time around).
Pretty much any party that hasn't had a serious go in power is a gimmick party, simply due to lack of experience.
You're just redefining "gimmick" to suit your argument. I don't consider minor and microparties to be gimmicks because they don't get many votes.
I consider them gimmicks if they use a gimmicky tactic to garner votes.
I consider the Sex Party to be a gimmick. Because teehee, Sex Party, get it?
We are talking about the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, not the sort of suburban football club or undergraduate student union for which such puerile names are appropriate.
And it really irks me that gimmick parties deprive other micros of the tiny amount of attention they get.
The charges were already dropped, then the prosecutor mysteriously replaced and the case reopened. The whole thing is a farce so there's no reason to bother with any trial.
> It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it
Of course, nobody has actually given any reasons for it. And I've not seen any indication that this isn't in fact uncommon in Sweden.
There are however many other factors that makes it curious. Such as their dogged insistence they couldn't possibly question him in London, despite the fact they have questioned other suspects abroad, and recently, in far more serious crimes (suspected murderers, for example) prior to extradition.
Somehow, the Assange case is "special" enough to the Swedish prosecutor in some way or other that she keeps running this case differently. For example the illegal leaks and official statements made to the Swedish press, that are pretty much unprecedented in Sweden.
Maybe she is only trying to score points. Maybe she genuinely believes she is doing the right thing. Maybe it really is a conspiracy.
But no matter what, there are too many oddities about the way they've pursued this case for me to not seriously question the motives of the people involved to the extent that I don't particularly believe that Assange has much chance of a fair trial.
All the oddities around the Assange case could just be coincidences. But it is arrogant to presume that there is no basis for other people to doubt whether he can get a fair trial.
> You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial.
Far worse people (even assuming he's guilty) are "just set free like that" all the time when there is reason to believe circumstances won't allow a fair trial.
The UK even let Pinochet leave, refusing to honour an extradition request from a Spanish judge. Yet it is so important to extradite someone wanted on an arrest warrant for questioning that may lead to a charge, where the country involved can't be bothered to send investigators despite multiple offers, that they post police around the clock for months outside an embassy.
Assange may be guilty, or he might not. If he is, then it would be a shame if he goes free.
But he is certainly getting special treatment, and we'd be remiss if we didn't ask why, and in the absence of clear answers, the response should be to demand he goes free.
> Such as their dogged insistence they couldn't possibly question him in London, despite the fact they have questioned other suspects abroad, and recently, in far more serious crimes (suspected murderers, for example) prior to extradition.
Assange is not wanted for questioning.
He is under warrant of arrest.
These are not the same thing. At all.
He hasn't been charged because he cannot in Swedish law be charged without first being arrested.
I find it quite telling that you choose to belabour this point rather than address the other issues.
He is under warrant of arrest, yes. And in Scandinavia this is used to bring someone in for questioning. This is what the prosecutor has repeatedly claimed is the purpose of the arrest warrant.
It is normal for such arrest warrants to be dropped with no subsequent charges. It also happens that they result in formal charges being brought.
I am not claiming that he might not end up getting charged as a result. He obviously can, if they can muster enough evidence.
I am on the other hand claiming that an arrest warrant means next to nothing in Scandinavia in terms of ascertaining the amount of evidence, and as such you can not use the existence of an arrest warrant as any kind of indication that he is more likely to actually have committed a crime, or that the police somehow has more evidence against him.
You repeatedly appear to try to make it sound as if the existence of an arrest warrant from Swedish authorities means far more than it does.
You make it sound as if these courts have seriously considered the evidence and determined there's substance to it, but the findings by the courts are far more narrow than that.
Swedish courts have found the allegations as stated by the prosecutor gives reason enough to issue an arrest warrant on suspicion to allow him to be questioned again (and possibly charged), not that evidence have been presented sufficient to charge or convict him.
The barrier for arresting someone on suspicion in Scandinavian countries is extremely low, as this is a routine way of taking someone in for questioning when the person in question refuses to return willingly.
The presence of a police interview with an alleged victim that contains statements that can reasonably be interpreted to implicate Assange in a crime would most likely in itself be sufficient.
The UK courts have only agreed that the allegations as stated by the prosecutors, and as supported by the prosecutors unverified accounts of what the women have said in police interviews would also amount to crimes in the UK, and that thus the content of the allegations is not an hindrance to extradition.
Assanges lawyers have not had opportunity to challenge the content of these, as that is outside of the scope of the extradition hearings, only to challenge the interpretation.
So these courts and jurists have not said much more than that if there is evidence to support these statements, that have not faced any legal challenge, then what is contained in them as written amounts to a crime.
My point is that the allegations have been found to have substance. Enough to support arrest and in due course for charges to be laid in either Sweden or England.
The English courts have twice ruled that were the complaints brought in England by English citizens, Assange would be liable to arrest and charges being laid. That is the basis of extradition to face trial.
Most countries have a multi-stage system of deciding which complaints to take to trial. In general:
1. Police must first receive and investigate a complaint.
2. Police report to prosecutors, who must decide to issue warrants or to lay charges.
3. A magistrate, prosecuting judge or grand jury must decide that there is sufficient evidence that a trial might be be successful -- ie, that's not a frivolous waste of a court's time.
4. Then and only then is there is a criminal trial.
So far the matter has gotten as far as stage 2.
So of course Assange hasn't been given opportunity to present his case. Because there's no case yet. He's not up to the case-presenting part of the procedure.
It doesn't matter who you are, everybody gets the same process. That's a fundamental pillar of equality before the law. Assange is no exception.
> Enough to support arrest and in due course for charges to be laid in either Sweden or England.
This is only half true. The allegations have been found to constitute a crime if they are true.
Therefore they are sufficient to justify an arrest warrant in Sweden, and I have described why that means nothing.
You can swear at a police officer in Scandinavia, and if you're lucky you'll find yourself arrested (and released before they'd need to formally charge you with anything). My dad had the misfortune of experiencing that first hand once when I was growing up.
In neither country did the court consider whether there was sufficient evidence to lay charges. That was in both cases outside of the remit of the court.
The rest of your comment conveniently contract the process to make it seem like the step from an arrest warrant to a charge is short in this case. It could be. It could also be much longer. It is not unusual for Scandinavian cases to go like this:
1. Police receives a complaint, and starts investigation.
2. Police wants to talk to X, and issues an arrest warrant. Interviews X. Releases X. Continues investigation
3. Police wants to talk to Y, and issues an arrest warrant. Interviews Y. Releases Y. Continues investigation
... continue until they finally find someone they have sufficient evidence to charge...
4. Police charges someone or decides there is no case to answer.
(followed, possibly, your step 3 and 4)
So getting to stage 2 in Scandinavia does not imply that they have any evidence, nor even that they are sure that a crime has occurred, nor that the person being arrested is someone the police have any degree of certainty have done anything even objectionable.
There's been plenty of cases recently with patterns like these.
Now, in this case we know that it's either Assange or nobody. But there is no implication inherent in the arrest warrant that says that there is evidence sufficient for charges, or that any will be made.
> It doesn't matter who you are, everybody gets the same process. That's a fundamental pillar of equality before the law. Assange is no exception.
If that had been true, this wouldn't even have been a discussion. If normal procedure had been followed, there'd been little reason to suspect foul play, and no reason not to urge Assange to go back - in fact, if that was the case and he went back, he'd worst case risk a prison sentence that would rob him of less freedom than what this process would (~6 months in a minimum security prison most non-Scandinavians would consider holiday-camp would be a likely sentence given the allegations, if found guilty).
There's numerous ways in which Assange's case have provably been handled outside the norm:
- He was wanted for arrest. The arrest warrant was cancelled and the case closed. A new prosecutor, a friend of the lawyer who represents the alleged victims, reopened the case. This in itself is at least highly unusual.
- The prosecutor has violated procedure by interviewing witnesses over the phone, possibly invalidating their statements.
- The prosecutor refuses to interview him abroad, alleging it can't be done, despite the fact that Swedish police did this with murder suspects after the extradition request against Assange was issued, and before the decision was handed down. Somehow different rules apply to Assange than people wanted for murder.
- UK police seems fit to "honour" him with a 24/7 watch, while lots of other people that are wanted are not even actively looked for.
You can claim "everybody gets the same process" all you want, but it is provably false.
(In this category it is also worth again mentioning that Sweden has admitted to colluding in illegal CIA rendition flights, handing political asylum seekers over to the CIA for transport to the regime they were fleeing, in direct violation of Swedish law and international treaties - so much for "everbody gets the same process"; forgive me for being sceptical of a regime that not only did that once, but that were caught red-handed by a different branch of government still assisting years after insisting it had stopped)
> You can swear at a police officer in Scandinavia, and if you're lucky you'll find yourself arrested (and released before they'd need to formally charge you with anything).
We have that in English-speaking countries too. It's called "Disturbing the Peace", or sometimes "Disorderly Conduct".
And it is not as serious as rape.
> A new prosecutor, a friend of the lawyer who represents the alleged victims, reopened the case. This in itself is at least highly unusual.
Then Assange should challenge that in the Swedish courts when he gets there.
> The prosecutor has violated procedure by interviewing witnesses over the phone, possibly invalidating their statements.
Then Assange should challenge that in the Swedish courts when he gets there.
> The prosecutor refuses to interview him abroad, alleging it can't be done, despite the fact that Swedish police did this with murder suspects after the extradition request against Assange was issued, and before the decision was handed down. Somehow different rules apply to Assange than people wanted for murder.
Assange is kinda obviously a flight risk.
> You can claim "everybody gets the same process" all you want, but it is provably false.
You are confusing the process, which is identical for everyone, with the idea that it is being executed by some omnibenevolent hypercomputer.
There are fuckups in every prosecution ever. The role of the courts, and then the appeal courts, and then ultimate courts, is to sort out which fuckups fatally break a case.
Assange has totally exhausted his legal opportunities in England; if he wants to receive further legal recourse then he will have to play it the Swedish way.
And if you think the Swedes would be stupid enough to hand such a high profile person over to the CIA, then I suspect you have embraced the exciting life of a conspiratard and we have nothing more to discuss.
>> "You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial."
Thank you. And yet, in countless meandering pagraphics and who knows how many sentences and words, exactly that is being argued. It defies logic.
Look, I get that some of you agree with his politics and cuases. Great. More power to you. But Please address the point above simply. Should someone accused of rape simply roam indefinitely without coming in to address the matter as the authorities have requested?
If there weren't a lot of major governments that really really want to get him, so that he could be guaranteed a fair trial, then of course he should stand trial.
...from his self-imposed prison, while facing as-yet-unanswered rape allegations? (FYI I have no idea if he's guilty, would probably want a court to examine it before I come to a conclusion.) how does he plan to even get to Australia to take up the seat if (by some miracle) he wins?!
i'm a green voter but i'd vote for assange in the senate - because he at least stands up for what he believes should be said. the other two main parties in oz are competing with each other to attract the swinging 20% that will give them the election. so they do not care about their electoral base (don't forget we have compulsory voting here, and long may it reign - none of that attracting younger voters crap we had to endure in the UK in 2004).
btw, i believe from what i've read that the charges against assange in sweden are trumped up. the US has put pressure on sweden to deliver another 'example' of how powerful they are.
It would actually be easier for the USA to extradite Assange from the UK than from Sweden. Extraditions under European Arrest Warrants are governed by a EU Council document which gives the veto powers to prevent re-extradition while proceedings are underway.
I'd almost respect this effort more if it were part of a plan to get diplomatic immunity, as suggested by others. But otherwise, this should spell the end of Assange as a "folk hero" in some corners of the digital world. I suspect that he could accomplish much more in his Wikileaks capacity than he ever could as a politician.
Extradite, waterboard, soletary confinement, sleep deprivation... The only positive thing is it would set a nice precedent for corrupt Parliament members.
The House of Representatives is what I think is being thought of :-)
Sorry to pile on, but as an aside, in the Senate it's all red, and in the House of Representatives it's Royal Red. In Australia, exit signs are green - everywhere except in the senate, which apparently amended legislation to my the sign red.
Given their preference for red, however, one wonders why there are so many of The Greens in the Senate.
Don't apologise, there's always someone ready to correct you when the mood strikes!
Speaking of taking undue care, I always ensure I double check the word "pedantry" when typing it into a text box via an iPad, lest the "n" turn into an "s".
A suspected criminal is a suspected criminal; I don't know what the tradition is in Oz, but wouldn't they vote (present a majority) to nullify any diplomatic immunity?
I know about cases in parliamentary democracies where someone's immunity has been nullified - assuming they have it in Australia - but only in domestic disputes, not international.
Australia does not have immunity for Parliamentarians.
Immunity is mostly a feature of countries with fully separated powers.
In fused Parliamentary systems it makes less sense to worry about the infringements of the Executive upon the Legislative, because the Executive is subsidiary to the Legislative.
I believe only one, Bobby Sands, was elected to Parliament. The government quickly introduced the Representation of the People Act (1981)[1], to prevent prisoners serving terms longer than a year from being nominated/elected in the future.
It's not a problem because there's no way he'd get in. Even people sympathetic to him as a person would think he'd be incredibly ineffectual - a literally absent senator.
And yes, we have extradition treaties with the US - a few years ago, we dutifully handed over a hacker who had never set foot in US soil, because his activities were harming US profits somewhere.
EDIT: It reminds me of a Mad Magazine gag: One of the good things about being a senator is that you get to use the title The Honourable right up until they throw you in jail for all the things you did.
I doubt he would actually get into senate, the ranks and file,would just use his evasion of litigation as volatile ammunition to make sure his stay in politics is a quick one
That's not true at all - for example Adair Blain was re-elected as the Member for Northern Territory in the 1943 election whilst being held as a POW by the Japanese.
AAP is 90% owned by News Ltd and Fairfax, the two major publishers in the country, who promote it as a national organization but have a massive commercial interest in the media status quo. The media status quo is threatened by Assange, who has been extremely vocal about the failures of journalism and would presumably seek to re-regulate this area to encourage alternative media.
As mass media is a strong ally of big business and established political groups, he fights really tremendously big economic and political forces (his words, Cypherpunks, 2012).
I for one wish him the best of luck. It's time to move over, old guard. Let's get some socially and technically-informed discussion back in to Australian politics before it gets any more irrelevant.