Julian Assange Preps For Australian Senate Race

Getting yourself on the docket for an election is tough no matter where you are. I'd say it would be tougher for a political refugee like Julian Assange, though. Assange recently flagged his intention to run for the Federal Senate, and now despite the adversity, Assange is on his way to the race.

The Age reports that the founder of Wikileaks has this week had his registration for electoral enrolment was handed to the Australian Electoral Commission in Melbourne, signalling the start of Assange's run for a Victorian Senate seat.

Assange will reportedly be backed by a 10-man Wikileaks party full of activists for the cause. The party's registration was presented to the AEC yesterday by a group of Assange supporters, including his father, a Sydney-based architect.

Would you 'Vote 1 Assange'? [The Age]



    If he becomes a Senator imagine if the US drone striked an Australian politician. Assange's smartest move, and him being in politics might show what a circus it truly is. The guy has a big ego and that usually works in parliament.

      Nice fantasy you have going there.

      If that happened, things would certainly start getting interesting for American troops in Afghanistan XD

      Specially with our SAS over there lol.

      Personally, I think the western countries of the world should ditch the U.S. dollar and stop buying oil with it. Take the U.S. out of the equation and spread some of that wealth around.

      NATO is so post 1940's anyway. Time for some fresh ideas.

      Last edited 13/02/13 4:31 pm

    I would if I lived in Victoria. I may not agree with the guys politics fully, but he is an advocate of something we desperately need in parliament: transparency.

      Just so you know, Complete trasparency is something which is un obtainable until we move to a single leadership planet which is nigh impossible. If our government is completely transparent then all other governments suddenly get a huge advantage over us in all aspects so its a dumb idea.

        No one said that we should be completely 100% transparent only that we should be (more) transparent.

        For example, no more signing secret treaties with other countries, and no more secret deals with rich people. As Australian citizens we should be, if not part of any discussion, party to the discussion.

        I agree with you in principle about 'complete transparency', particularly with regards to national security. Unfortunately, what has happened in practice is that various governments have abused 'national security' to hide potentially bad decisions, criminal activity and war crimes from voters.

        There needs to be some accountability when national secrets are abused in this way. Traditionally this was the role of media outlets, but they've been asleep at the wheel. I don't see an alternative to wikileaks stepping up to fill the void right now, even though I don't agree with their push for total transparency.

      No he is not! Assange talks about transparency and yet refuses to abide by the requirements that he makes of others. The word "hypocrite" barely begins to cover the behaviour of this low-life!

        I assume you are referring to the charges against him, which are very debatably unanswered. Without going into the (obvious) reasons why he hasn't presented for questioning a third time, this does not make him a hypocrite. He advocates Government transparency, not personal. You can believe in the need for transparent governance in a democracy, and the right to privacy for the individual. They are not mutually exclusive.

          Charges? Assange has not been charged with anything. This whole circus is simply over extradition for questioning.

          Also, I completely agree: Government transparency is separate from individual privacy.

            To be honest, I don't buy the whole thing anyway. If you look at some of the shenanigans the US Government got up to, as revealed by the diplomatic cables, fabricating charges is exactly the sort of response they would make to a perceived security threat.

          You cannot have governmental transparency without having transparency of the individuals in Government and in Parliament. Government and Parliament are a collection of the individuals that form those.

            Only in their capacity as public servants. Even politicians are entitled to privacy at home, like the rest of us.

              To a large extent, I agree . . . but it does depend on what they are doing in their "private" time - Obeid's alleged misdeeds occurred in both public and private time, to give one simple example.

            That's a mammoth stretch - the fact is, unless its directly relevant to their duties (Obeid is a good example - he had a conflict of interest that should have been public), politicians have the same right to privacy as everyone else.

        So politician would be the perfect career for him.

        Peter, Peter, oh how young you must be (or old).

        Even if he did do what they are saying, i am still voting for him.

          And how naive you must be . . . and it stands to reason that I will not be voting for him.

          "Even if he did do what they are saying, i am still voting for him." Amongst other things, he has been accused of two rapes - and you would be comfortable to vote for a twice rapist and put him into our Parliament? That is stunning, beyond words!

            he is not charged with that at all, what he is charged with is having sex with two girls who later regretted it - not exactly rape (you should really check the facts before calling someone else naive).

            Anyway, i believe he can do a better job then anyone else can, so he is getting my vote. Even if he is convicted. Grow up and see the world for what it is, and what it could be.

              "you should really check the facts before calling someone else naive)." Oh, but you find it quite alright to refer to someone as old or young without checking your facts. That "h" word rises again . . .

              You are confusing the word "rape" with "sexual assault". Rape has a very narrow definition, but it used in the common parlance when sexual assault is meant. Rape is no longer an offence in many jurisdictions as it has been replaced with the wider, statutory offence of sexual assault or some equivalent. "Consent" is an issue in the matters of the two women. The BBC do a wonderful comparison, albeit that they also incorrectly use the word "rape".

    Assange is not a registered voter and it looks unlikely that he will be able to register as an overseas voter. He will have to be able to prove he has lived in Australia within the last three years (he's lived overseas for six years) and he has to be able to convince the electoral commission that he will be returning to live in Australia within six years. Tricky, with several countries wanting to arrest him and put him on criminal trial.
    Personally, I can't understand why anyone would vote for someone so egocentric to represent the people's views in the Senate.

      Just because you think you can find flaws in a person's personality does not automatically mean they are unsuited to a particular job.

      Egotism? In Australian politics? Totally impossible

      I can't understand why anyone would vote for someone so egocentric to represent the people's views in the Senate.

      I'm pretty sure that's a core requirement for becoming a politician.

      You dont have to understand - But know that there will be people voting for someone who has more good in a finger of his, then the entire collective Australian federal government does.

      I will.

      You don't need to be on the electoral roll in order to nominate. Check out Section 163 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Also, Antony Green wrote a piece on this for the ABC.

      I want him in to expose what a circus the politics game is. Also it would be a major middle finger to the US and we could do with more Australians that will not kowtow to the US in our parliament.

    If he mans up and faces his accusers in Sweden, then yeah, I'd vote for him.

      lol but why the need to have a trial in sweden and not just in england where his at atm ? and we all know the reason to that ......

      question is also if he did get the role lol how is he going to come to australia lol

      The accusers who invited him back to their rooms the day after the alleged offence? Yeah, he already offered to appear for questioning, back before he originally left Sweden (they said, "no, it's cool, you can leave", then issued a warrant the day he left). He's also offered to appear for questioning in London (they declined that too).

      Considering how the Swedish authorities show no interest in charging him or even questioning him, only in extraditing him, I don't blame him for being suspicious about their motives. Too many politicians (US and here) have declared their intent to prosecute him, even offering to change the laws if necessary.

      By "Man Up" you mean by being an idiot and actually travelling to Sweden where the U.S will have him extradited in a heart beat.

      He has offered to "face his accusers" (for questioning as he hasn't been officially charged with anything) via video conference which has been done many times before in countless other cases but oh no, Sweden just could not entertain the possibility of that happening in THIS particular case.

      The whole case against him is so dodgy anyone with half a brain can read between the lines on what is really occurring. Create an accusation as a front to get him to Sweden with the end goal of throwing his ass into cell in the U.S where he will never see the light of day again.

      Last edited 13/02/13 1:47 pm

      You mean if he faces the American government, who will torture him like they did manning? and then kill him?

      Educate yourself.

    Personally, he won't get my vote. I am all for WikiLeaks and freedom of information, but Assange is a poor and flawed figurehead. People have developed a cult of personality around him and confuse him with the movement he created.

      But he is the move he created dummy, he is the creator, therefore he is wikileaks

    Mendax - a senator?

    How would that affect his legal situation in London? Diplomatic immunity and a plane flight back to Aus, sans rendition?

    We need an Argo version for Julian Assange...

    What is it with people that they find Assange to be a "flawed personality" and "egotist? After a lifetime of dealing with every conceivable personality bent I find that Assange is perfectly coherent and principled, deeply informed on political issues, and thoroughly sane. I can only conclude that most of his critics are the Australian Idol school of life which means they can only deal with saccharine personalities that make them feel good about themselves. You know, a cross between a sporting hero and a Mother Theresa who never makes enemies because he's too busy making the rest of us feel good about our insecure and ill-informed little selves. Grow up! Assange is a first class journalist pointing an arrow straight at the heart of the police state mentality and methods that threaten the very fabric of what we called civilized society. I would for him and his party in a heart beat.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now