
Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate - gavinballard
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/julian-assange-to-run-for-senate-20130130-2dl92.html
======
contingencies
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.

~~~
chris_wot
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.

~~~
fourmii
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...

~~~
chris_wot
The iPad app is still excellent. But try the Global Mail.

<http://www.theglobalmail.org/>

------
adaml_623
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.

~~~
rmc
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)

~~~
uvdiv
That's UK law applied to UK lawmakers; there's nothing diplomatic about that.

~~~
rmc
Sure, but it shows the UK government has no problem jailing _UK
parliamentarians_. What makes you think they'd act differently for Australian
parliamentarians?

~~~
uvdiv
_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.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege>

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8355298/Nick-Clegg-voters-
sh...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8355298/Nick-Clegg-voters-should-have-
right-to-expel-MPs-convicted-of-a-criminal-offence.html)

------
mr_eel
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.

------
jacques_chester
So far as I can make out ... he can't stand.

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).

~~~
caf
Antony Green wrote a posting on this issue (and Assange's general chances of
being elected) here: [http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/12/what-chance-
of-j...](http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/12/what-chance-of-julian-
assange-being-elected-to-the-senate.html)

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.

~~~
jacques_chester
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.

~~~
caf
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.

~~~
jacques_chester
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.

~~~
caf
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.

~~~
jacques_chester
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."

------
damian2000
Maybe he should join forces with the Australian Pirate Party
(<http://pirateparty.org.au/>) - they have some similar views.

~~~
cabalamat
I was thinking the same thing. Setting up his own Wikileaks party would be a
division of resources.

------
ssharwood
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.

~~~
mr_eel
Saying 'I might run for the Senate' is different to the announcement of a
federal election and then confirming that yes, he definitely will run.

If you don't think that's newsworthy, aaaaah, you're nuts.

------
tokenizer
If for anything, I hope he wins so he can go back outside, and live a decent
life.

~~~
twelvechairs
There's no guarantee that winning a senate seat would allow him to exit the
UK. That said it would add considerable political pressure...

~~~
jacques_chester
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.

~~~
vidarh
Maybe not pressure from Australia. But a whole load of _other_ people,
including governments, would take the opportunity to turn it into a PR
nightmare.

~~~
jacques_chester
This would materially affect any Australian government how, exactly?

A particularly spicy Monbiot column? Gosh!

~~~
vidarh
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.

~~~
jacques_chester
Sorry, I misread you.

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.

~~~
vidarh
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.

~~~
jacques_chester
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.

~~~
vidarh
> 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).

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
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.

------
tehwalrus
...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?!

------
eldonnn
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.

~~~
jacques_chester
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.

------
noarchy
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.

------
zachinglis
I'm not sure how well this'll work for him. He's made an enemy out of most
people. I expect it'd be an even harder job for him than most.

------
kmfrk
Don't Australia have extradition treaty agreements with the U.S.?

~~~
gavinballard
I imagine it's probably a bit tricky to extradite a sitting member of the
federal Parliament...

~~~
digitalengineer
Extradite, waterboard, soletary confinement, sleep deprivation... The only
positive thing is it would set a nice precedent for corrupt Parliament
members.

~~~
mr_eel
I appreciate the humour, but he's running for Senate, not Parliament :)

~~~
rmccue
Parliament includes both Houses:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia>

(Sorry to be pedantic. ;) )

~~~
chris_wot
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.

------
madao
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

~~~
chris_wot
Rank and file of _what_ precisely?

------
belorn
If he won, he would be the first person doing so while not being physically in
Australia during the election.

~~~
caf
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.

------
TamDenholm
Is he still in the Ecuadorian embassy? I've not really heard what hes doing or
where he is recently.

~~~
0x0
Yep, there were images of him receiving a posted package containing a GPS & a
camera a week or two ago: <https://twitter.com/bitnk>

------
rikacomet
Is this to get out of his embassy based exile?

------
ttar
I'll vote for him

