Senator Assange?

[Aractus]

Link.

So far the British government has spent £2.9 million (approx AUD 4.4 million) watching the Ecuadorian Embassy since Assange took asylum there. As I've already pointed out in another thread this is a totally ridiculous amount of money, time and resources to spend on such a menial matter as an extradition. Assange may have political ideas I disagree with, but he's no danger to the public. As I said before it's a total waste of money because he won't leave the Embassy while it's surrounded by police, thus negating the requirement that they be there in the first place.

His plan for freedom is to win a Senate seat in the upcoming Federal Election - by which time he will have been in the Embassy for 15 months, and by which time the British government will have spent another £2.9 million watching Assange do nothing at all but live quietly in the Embassy.

I am deeply concerned about this matter for a number of reasons. The most important being how England is treating a political refugee and Australian who wants to do no crimes in England, and is no threat to England. Since when is it okay to treat refugees like criminals? The State should be charged with illegal imprisonment of a refugee.

The next is their diplomatic relations with Ecuador. The British government was willing to bend over backwards for Sweden’s extradition request - yet they do not apply anywhere near that level of diplomacy with Ecuador, who has accepted Assange as a refugee and wants England and Sweden to accept his legal status as a refugee.

To spend £2.9 million guarding someone who's crime was having sex without a condom is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the charge itself in Sweden which many believe is politically motivated.

Originally when I heard of these charges back in 2011, I thought that Sweden was an independent relatively politically neutral country. Maybe Sweden is acting independently without pressure from the US. It seems to me that this matter is so trivial that it isn't worth pursuing extradition for in the first place, let alone the charade that's going on London. Assange has little option but to sit tight where he is until such time as he can safely leave the confines of the Embassy without fear of arrest/extradition.

I also don't understand why England is behaving so heavy-handedly towards this situation, if they are not under pressure from the USA. For one thing, the menial charges are Sweden’s problem, not theirs, and they have no obligation to spend so much money trying to extradite someone who's avoiding extradition.

Assange believes his best chance of leaving safely is being elected to the Senate, which will require England to recognize him as an Australian Politician in addition to a Political Refugee. Arresting Assange over such menial charges if he were indeed an Australian Politician would certainly cause an international row. It'll be interesting to see how much longer Assange must wait before he can leave. If he waits just 19 more months then England will have spent £10 million waiting for him to leave. Sooner or later they will have to realize that it's a complete waste of taxpayer money to have the Ecuadorian Embassy guarded by police day and night.

[Tiberius]

Since when did government care about wasting money?

[Something completely different]

*facepalm


police operations are notoriously expensive.

A public protest with 2000 participants can cost up to 500 000 euros. - Should we therefor forbid public gatherings and protests because they cost to much?

And who are you to decide what is a useless and a usefull police operation.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

I am not an expert on Assange and his past, but Sweden is a very democratic country.

[Darth]

And I'm those sent to Egypt took solace in that fact.

[Justtristo]

Regardless of the reasons why Julian Assange wants to get elected to the Senate, if he decides to run for a Senate seat (most likely in Victoria). I predict an Assange ticket would get enough of the vote to win a Senate seat (at the likely expense of the Greens). It could be likely in that scenario that a Coalition government lacking a senate majority, would face a Senate whose balance of power is comprised of Nick Xenophon of South Australia, The Democratic Labor Party senator from Victoria, Julian Assange and possibly a Katter's Australia Party Senator from Queensland.

Many Australians regard Julian Assange as a hero and an Assange ticket would attract support from people who normally vote Labor and even the Liberals, along with those who support the Greens.

Link.

So far the British government has spent £2.9 million (approx AUD 4.4 million) watching the Ecuadorian Embassy since Assange took asylum there. As I've already pointed out in another thread this is a totally ridiculous amount of money, time and resources to spend on such a menial matter as an extradition. Assange may have political ideas I disagree with, but he's no danger to the public. As I said before it's a total waste of money because he won't leave the Embassy while it's surrounded by police, thus negating the requirement that they be there in the first place.

His plan for freedom is to win a Senate seat in the upcoming Federal Election - by which time he will have been in the Embassy for 15 months, and by which time the British government will have spent another £2.9 million watching Assange do nothing at all but live quietly in the Embassy.

I am deeply concerned about this matter for a number of reasons. The most important being how England is treating a political refugee and Australian who wants to do no crimes in England, and is no threat to England. Since when is it okay to treat refugees like criminals? The State should be charged with illegal imprisonment of a refugee.

The next is their diplomatic relations with Ecuador. The British government was willing to bend over backwards for Sweden’s extradition request - yet they do not apply anywhere near that level of diplomacy with Ecuador, who has accepted Assange as a refugee and wants England and Sweden to accept his legal status as a refugee.

To spend £2.9 million guarding someone who's crime was having sex without a condom is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the charge itself in Sweden which many believe is politically motivated.

Originally when I heard of these charges back in 2011, I thought that Sweden was an independent relatively politically neutral country. Maybe Sweden is acting independently without pressure from the US. It seems to me that this matter is so trivial that it isn't worth pursuing extradition for in the first place, let alone the charade that's going on London. Assange has little option but to sit tight where he is until such time as he can safely leave the confines of the Embassy without fear of arrest/extradition.

I also don't understand why England is behaving so heavy-handedly towards this situation, if they are not under pressure from the USA. For one thing, the menial charges are Sweden’s problem, not theirs, and they have no obligation to spend so much money trying to extradite someone who's avoiding extradition.

Assange believes his best chance of leaving safely is being elected to the Senate, which will require England to recognize him as an Australian Politician in addition to a Political Refugee. Arresting Assange over such menial charges if he were indeed an Australian Politician would certainly cause an international row. It'll be interesting to see how much longer Assange must wait before he can leave. If he waits just 19 more months then England will have spent £10 million waiting for him to leave. Sooner or later they will have to realize that it's a complete waste of taxpayer money to have the Ecuadorian Embassy guarded by police day and night.

---

I am not an expert on Assange and his past, but Sweden is a very democratic country.

Sweden is a nation where is it illegal to paid a sex worker, but it is not illegal to be a sex worker.

[Aractus]

Regardless of the reasons why Julian Assange wants to get elected to the Senate, if he decides to run for a Senate seat (most likely in Victoria). I predict an Assange ticket would get enough of the vote to win a Senate seat (at the likely expense of the Greens). It could be likely in that scenario that a Coalition government lacking a senate majority, would face a Senate whose balance of power is comprised of Nick Xenophon of South Australia, The Democratic Labor Party senator from Victoria, Julian Assange and possibly a Katter's Australia Party Senator from Queensland.

Many Australians regard Julian Assange as a hero and an Assange ticket would attract support from people who normally vote Labor and even the Liberals, along with those who support the Greens.

Hahahaha, you "predict" that an Assange ticket will get elected? That's just crazy. Most Australians vote for the major parties - ALP and Libs/Nats. The Greens are a minor party who's popularity has peaked as they becoming increasingly less popular among first-time-voters, environmentalists, and even left-wing voters. All the candidates you mentioned have the potential to get elected, but in all likely hood there will not be any more independents or minor-party Senators than there are at present.

Assange isn't going to get elected because people like him. And there are a shitload of Australians who don't like him too, so there's no way that his popularity vote will win him a Senate seat. He will have to campaign effectively on key issues facing Australia for the next three years. People want to know that a Senator is willing to be their voice, so he will have to campaign on how he will be the community's voice, what community values facing Victoria that he will fight for, etc.

You are correct though that he will potentially dislodge the Green's seat and take it, which in all honesty should be his ambition. The last thing he would want to do is to try and align himself with the Greens, that would be a disaster for him. The Greens want to stop mining, logging, all kinds of crazy shit (of course point out to them that we import timber cut down from Indonesian rainforests and they'll still say they want to end logging in Australia). Assange is politically left-wing, and most of the Australian people are centre-right. Thus he'll need to explain his policies in such a way that gets through to people that are in all likely hood not politically aligned with him. So I don't think it's as likely as you think, except for the fact that we already know that there's a Green's senate seat which he could potentially dislodge with a well enough run campaign.

[Justtristo]

Hahahaha, you "predict" that an Assange ticket will get elected? That's just crazy. Most Australians vote for the major parties - ALP and Libs/Nats. The Greens are a minor party who's popularity has peaked as they becoming increasingly less popular among first-time-voters, environmentalists, and even left-wing voters. All the candidates you mentioned have the potential to get elected, but in all likely hood there will not be any more independents or minor-party Senators than there are at present.

Nick Xenophon was elected to the Senate for South Australia in 2007 and is facing re-election this year. Although in 2007 he won 14.8% of the popular vote in South Australia, as far as I know nobody is doubting he will be re-elected in September.

The Democratic Labor Party Senator from Victoria John Mulholland was elected back in 2010 (so is not facing re-election this year) through favorable preference flows from other parties (despite only winning 2% of the vote).

Bob Katter's Australia Party I reckon have a reasonable chance of winning a Senate seat in Queensland. Those chances would be boosted if they can get favorable preference flows from other parties.

Also while the Greens vote in the opinion polls is down compared to the last election, however it is not down by much. The Newspolls over the last several months had the Greens federally at between 8% and 11%, compared to 12% at the last election. Greens support is more stable than declining.

The Greens will probably not get as many senators elected as they did in 2010 (which was 6), however only the 3 (Hanson-Young, Ludlam and Whish-Wilson) elected in 2007 are facing re-election this year and only Hanson-Young might not get re-elected. Unless Assange decides to run for the Senate in Victoria, the Greens should get a senator elected there (which they did not achieve in 2007). So in the next parliament the Greens will maintain their numbers or lose a senator.

Assange isn't going to get elected because people like him. And there are a shitload of Australians who don't like him too, so there's no way that his popularity vote will win him a Senate seat. He will have to campaign effectively on key issues facing Australia for the next three years. People want to know that a Senator is willing to be their voice, so he will have to campaign on how he will be the community's voice, what community values facing Victoria that he will fight for, etc.

Actually I believe Assange would be fighting a Senate election campaign on issues such as censorship, freedom of speech and copyright laws. These are not inconsiderable issues to a sizable slice of the electorate.

Also in ordinary half-senate elections a candidate or party needs around 14% of the vote to be guaranteed a senate seat. Although you can still get elected with a lot less of the vote, if you can get a favorable preference flow from the other parties. There have been occasions where Senators have been elected with as little as 2% of the vote. However got really good preference flows.

So if Assange were to run for the Senate, he would easily get much more than 2% of the vote. More near the 14% of the vote needed to be guaranteed a Senate spot. He would get some of that support from those who currently support the Greens, who aren't radical environmentalists (which is a sizable slice of their current supporters and even membership).

I have to disagree about your assessment that Australians are a 'center-right' nation, certainly not by American standards. To many Americans if they were familiar enough with Australian politics, they would consider us a nation of pinko liberals, if not socialists. In America for example our industrial relations laws would be condemned as anti-competitive, because they put severe restrictions on employers firing their employees.

Finally personally I believe Assange wants to become a Senator in order to make it extremely difficult for him to be extradited to Sweden. Because imagine the Scandal if an Australian Senator were to be extradited.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

I am not an expert on Assange and his past, but Sweden is a very democratic country.

Sweden is a nation where is it illegal to paid a sex worker, but it is not illegal to be a sex worker.

You're trying to say that this makes Sweden not democratic?

[Justtristo]

Sweden is a nation where is it illegal to paid a sex worker, but it is not illegal to be a sex worker.

You're trying to say that this makes Sweden not democratic?

Of course not, however I was pointing out that Sweden is a nation where it is illegal to pay a sex worker, but it is not illegal to be a sex worker. That fact alone gives you an idea what sort of country Sweden is, also I was humoring as well.