Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#61

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:22 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #57

jacques_chester wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're a gimmick party and we all know it. Numerous parties have stood under those policies without resorting to cheap marketing tactics.

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.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#62

Post by mmcnickle » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:23 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #26

gavinballard wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Several IRA terrorists have been elected to the UK parliament whole in prison. Doesn't mean they were out of prison, they still had to stay in prison

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.

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1981

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#63

Post by taligent » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:24 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #29

contingencies wrote: post #25

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…

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…

Online is terrible. In print and on the iPad it is far better.

But I fear for Fairfax when the Guardian officially launches: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/australia

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#64

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:30 PM UTC

caf wrote: post #58

jacques_chester wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#65

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:36 PM UTC

cynicalkane wrote: post #60

Kiro wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing mysterious going on here. It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it. 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.

> can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that If there's no substance to the allegations, yes, the person accused should absolutely just be set free like that. This is obvious.

The allegations have been repeatedly upheld as substantial by multiple jurists and court officers in multiple countries.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#66

Post by caf » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:39 PM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #64

caf wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#67

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:42 PM UTC

eldonnn wrote: post #36

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 t…

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.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#68

Post by fourmii » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:48 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #29

contingencies wrote: post #25

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…

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…

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...

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#69

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:48 PM UTC

caf wrote: post #66

jacques_chester wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#70

Post by celticninja » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 12:48 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #29

contingencies wrote: post #25

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…

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…

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.