Only some of the contempt?

Julian Assange is running for the Senate in Australia, and has said he’ll appoint Leslie Cannold as his “proxy” (I didn’t know there was such a thing) if he’s elected and can’t return to Canberra. (They let you do that? Strange.)

The point is, it’s seen as a good wheeze, because Australia (like all the places) has a misogyny problem. (Never!! No, really, I understand it does.)

This is an election where misogyny, always lurking under the surface like a tetanus spore, has erupted. Both political parties are overwhelmingly choosing men to replace outgoing MPs in safe seats, and former PM Julia Gillard told The Monthly magazine that some of the contempt that she was shown as prime minister was about being the first woman in the job.

Or, perhaps, about being a woman in the job.

…as soon as her position on the WikiLeaks Party ticket was announced on 25 July, the Tweets started – specifically – how can WikiLeaks Party supporters disavow rape culture considering that the leader Julian Assange is hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London while facing rape allegations?

Well, that was certainly my first thought.


  1. says

    I am not a constitutional lawyer but if a Senator dies or retires or is expelled from the party or whatever this creates a ‘casual vacancy’ and the party can appoint a new person to replace them. As opposed to a House of Representatives member, where there has to be a by-election in case of death or retirement. So I guess JA gets elected (bleargh lets hope not), JA steps down, Cannold gets appointed. Maybe there’s another ‘proxy’ provision but I’ve never heard of it.

    Cannold is handling it probably about as well as you could, she wrote a Guardian article justifying it, but I still find her reasoning unpersuasive.

  2. Al Dente says

    I strongly suspect that Assange isn’t as concerned about being extradited to the US as he is about spending years in a Swedish prison after being convicted of rape.

  3. says

    I strongly suspect that Assange isn’t as concerned about being extradited to the US as he is about spending years in a Swedish prison after being convicted of rape.

    Most likely – His lawyer, and by extension, he himself, must know that the odds of extradition are tiny. Well, his lawyer knows that – it’s not impossible Assange legitimately believes this in spite of the evidence. But you know, absent evidence, it’s more likely he knows he’s going to go to prison for rape. And a rape he ‘knows’ he ‘didn’t do’, too.

  4. Donnie says

    The lengths that the White House has gone for Bradley Manning, who knows what the White House has gone against Edwin Snowden, and we are skeptical about the White House regarding an extradition request? I have no clue as to the guilt or innocence of Julian Assange, but the quickest way to determine and obtains the facts is for Sweeden to grant absolute immunity or whatever regarding extradition. Julian said he would return to face charges, if he is not extradiated to the U.S. He is hiding out in a Ecuadorian embassy because Britian will not guarantee him safe passage out of the Ecuadorian embassy. I assume that Britan is a strong ally with the U.S. and is just waiting to intercept him and return him to the U.S. I think it is safe to assume that he has a right to be paranoid about extradition to the U.S.

    How would you react to facing up to 3-years in solitary confinment, on suicide watch without facing a trial?

  5. Smokey Dusty says

    @Donnie. All Assange is asking is that Sweden will subvert due process and the law (in Sweden extradition requests are received by prosecutors) by guaranteeing it will not respond to a hypothetical extradition request for a hypothetical crime. No big deal. I’m sure most criminal justice systems extend the same courtesy to most accused criminals.

    His position is entirely logical. He will only trust Sweden to apply its law fairly if it guarantees not to apply its law fairly.

    Did you ever see his lawyer interviewed, expressing amazement that Assange had a red Interpol alert but Ghaddafi ONLY had an orange. Well red means ‘wanted for questioning’. Orange means ‘might have concealed explosives’. Do you think his top-shelf lawyer didn’t know that? Do you think she was banking on the rest of us not knowing that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *