Newspoll: 54-46 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes tweets that the latest Newspoll has the Coalition two-party lead at 54-46, down from an aberrant 57-43 a fortnight ago. The Coalition is down four points on the primary vote to 44 per cent, which in fact returns them to where they were in the poll before last. Labor is up a point to 31 per cent, which is still a point shy of the previous poll, and the Greens are on 13 per cent, which compares with 10 per cent last time and 12 per cent the time before. Julia Gillard has consolidated the lead she opened up as preferred prime minister a fortnight ago, which ended five months of ascendancy for Tony Abbott: she is now up three to 43 per cent, with Abbott up one to 36 per cent. Gillard also has a less bad net approval rating than Abbott for the first time in eight months, with her approval up two points to 36 per cent (its highest in eight months) and disapproval up one to 56 per cent. Abbott is down one on approval to 33 per cent and up two on disapproval to 57 per cent, in both cases equalling his previous worst results and collectively producing his lowest ever net rating of minus 24.
UPDATE: Essential Research likewise has it at 54-46, unchanged from last week, with primary votes of 47 per cent for the Coalition (down one), 34 per cent for Labor (steady) and 10 per cent for the Greens (down one). Encouragingly for Labor, there has been a shift in sentiment in favour of the government seeing out its full term: support is up seven points since early September to 47 per cent, with “hold election now” down seven to 41 per cent. Less happily for them, a question on best party to handle 15 issues has Labor leading only on industrial relations, and then only slightly – the Liberals hold leads approaching 20 per cent for all economic questions, as well as “political leadership”. On the question of which issues will most influence vote choice, there has been little change since June.
UPDATE 2: Possum charts polling showing a shift in sentiment away from an early election:
However, the apparently radical nature of the shift from the first two polls to the last three is largely a function of the poorly framed question posed by Galaxy in the earlier cases, when respondents were offered the false dichotomy of “Gillard has a mandate for the carbon tax” and “an early election should be called”. Australia’s worst and least trusted major newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, used these obviously flawed results to run a front page lead claiming Australians were “demanding Julia Gillard call a fresh election” and an editorial headlined “voters demand a carbon tax ballot”. It will be interesting to see how the paper reports today’s contrary finding from Essential Research.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
lizzie – hot! I’ll swap ya cos it’s darn cold here. Back to warm clothes this week which is nice but I’d like a little sun, please.
by BH on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Patrick Bateman -
So you’re putting yourself in the position of interpreting the circumstances of the case and judging him innocent, all while sitting in Australia. Excellent. That’s the way justice is done.
When sex is consensual with condom usage, slyly removing the condom later kind of violates the ‘consensuality’ that was understood at the start. etc etc. I don’t want to go into the merits of the case against him – that’s for a court in Sweden to determine based on Swedish law, not us as the commentariat etc.
And of course the way European arrest warrants work, and extradition in general, the point is not about whether he is innocent or guilty of the crime – since that is supposed to be determined in the appropriate jurisdiction when he gets there – but whether the extradition procedures have been followed correctly.
And?
You’re basically asserting that the Swedish justice system has been completely subverted by the USA leaning on the Swedish government to get a result that feeds into its hidden plan to ‘get’ him. That’s a BIG call to suggest that a modern western democratic country with a long history of strong independent institutions has just rolled over and gone thoroughly corrupt.
I am not naive at all. If the USA were going to do any of these underhand things, they would have done it already. Julian Assange has the undeniable benefit of a lot of public scrutiny – they can’t just disappear him even if they wanted to (which I doubt). IF your conspiracy theory holds up and he is extradited from Sweden to the USA, he will get his day in court and all the protections that the USA justice system provides to individuals, which is quite a lot.
I’m still astounded that the various conspiracy theorists are able to discount an entire country’s legal system (Sweden) as being nothing but a sock puppet for USA will.
I will be most amused if Julian Assange ends up in Sweden, gets a month or two in a Swedish jail, or more likely is acquitted/not charged because of the inconsistencies in the stories of his accusers, and then goes free with it all done and dusted.
by Jackol on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Assenge and Lying Governments
_________________________
In an age when more and more people are wary of ALL politicians and all governments and spin doctors ….,and in the aftermath of the Iraq war when hundreds of thousands were killed and exiled by a war fought on the basis of lies by Blair/Bush and their sattelites like Howard,…Assenge simply confirmed the lying on so many fronts,about which most of us always held our own suspicions
The efforts of Bush to link Iraq to 9/II..when the conspirators were Saudis in the main…
the anti-islamists groups and the Zionst Lobby around Wolfitwitz and others of his ilk..all of whom love wars in the Middle east(though they are starting to be a a bit chastened by the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan,,,all these contributed to the Liars Chorus,,,and Assenge has bravely shown them all up..whatever his motives..and I can’t believe than anyone but the most fervent right-wingers would oppose that
by deblonay on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:13 pm
I don’t think Mr Assange has been charged with anything yet. As I understand it, Sweden has some sort of warrant out for his arrest so that he may be questioned about certain alleged matters. Still, I could be wrong as I haven’t be paying close attention to it for some time.
by Darc on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:14 pm
When push comes to shove?
The facade of the totalitarian Labor Right goes to pieces under the crushing barrage of daretotread’s debating virtuosity??
I think that you overrate the force of your arguments a tad.
by Kersebleptes on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Good News World sum up St Julian perfectly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5phv04on-OE
by Frank Calabrese on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Patrick Bateman
so it’s evil and wicked for governments to censor the material they release to the public, but when Assange does exactly the same thing – for much the same reasons – then he’s pure and shiny?
by zoomster on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:16 pm
PatriciaWA,
Thanks. I remember Michelle and have subbed her. “In paragraph 8, three words in, there’s a comma missing … ” OK, Michelle, fixed. It’s all a bit sad. I say: Cut the old gal some slack. It won’t be long.
Meantime, Paul Kelly. Spook.
by Scringler on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Geez, it’s not a hard concept. He’s NOT pure and shiny. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be treated fairly and in accordance with law.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:20 pm
You’ve summed up the Assange Cultists perfectly
by Frank Calabrese on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Clearly Hockey doesn’t want to face the media over the budget costings and audit issue.
by Lynchpin on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Patrick Bateman
which is he is being, so what’s your beef?
by zoomster on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Lynchpin
Don’t be nasty to poor old Sloppy. He’s had a hard year and needs a holiday.
by lizzie on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:25 pm
The australian electorate is broadly secular, pragmatic and progressive.
There are of course soem residual black spots such as race and we see this in indigenous issues and of course asylum seekers.
Even on the question of carbon pricing the polls come in 60% in favour when the question is put as taxing polluters and giving that money to households.
There is a massive disconnect between the populace and the ALP which resolves around personality of the PM and the memes of incompetence and instability.
Short term and long term its not about cajoling votes from latte sippers or bogans but actually implementing progressive policy which is in line with community values.
As the ALP review rightly points out the pandering to the lowest denominator wont work. The ALP needs to be judged on its policies and implementation. Julia Gillard knows this as most of the parliamentary front bench. They have concentrated on this in 2011 and should continue in 2012.
Progressive voters who are the majority look for quality and equity in health and education and vibrancy and fairness in our economy together with social policies which draw us closer to that light on the hill.
Some on the pragmatic right understand this but there are too many dinosaur right who can only resort to caving in to ignorance and the bullying tactics which they believe are effective but are in fact counter productive.
Politics is the art of the possible but the pre 2010 entrenched timidity meant that the ALP thought nothing much was possible except pandering to the least in our midsts.
For mine I dont care if in future we have a 40% Alp 20% green split or 30% /30% split but clearly in order to achieve the policy outcomes most want the two parties need to work productively and co-operatively “moving forward”.
And just on some of my policy positions so that any potential character assinations can be well aimed.
1. I would be happy if we didn’t export uranium full stop but if we export to Russia and China, then India is not a bridge too far.
2. I am happy with on shore processing and the normalisation of the process which will result in treating boat people the same as plane people. The issue of deaths at sea however is still a live issue as is fairness between those who wait in camps and those that dont. I am not convinced that the Malaysian soultion wont work to deter arrivals. Whether it is better to deny hope to those who try by boat and providing more spots to those in africa and source countries as opposed to allowing that hope and endangering lives is the next ethical and political dilemma.
3. I think Julia Gillard would have been better placed to support gay marriage and ride the tide in – but in the context of her previously policy positions the conference outcome was pretty inevtitable. it is by the way now identical to the greens – platform supports gay marriage but members are allowed a consience vote.
Finally as I said the ALP should concventrate on delivering good governance and progressive policy.
If the electorate’s position on Julia is rusted on – leadership decisions/changes can be made, next christmas.
by gough1 on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Compared to Stern Hu, Assange is being treated with kid gloves.
by Frank Calabrese on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Yes I agree with you, I don’t know how old she is, probably younger than me, what upsets me is her constant disparging articles about the PM, these all started after the 2010 election and hasn’t stopped, before that I though she was balanced and enjoyed her articles. I don’t mind the jounos having a go at all parties (remember the great Alan Ramsay) that is healthy, but this is constant, I just wish I knew why she can’t stand JG?
by mari on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Straw man alert!
The discussion was about whether the ALP has somehow failed in its duty to look after Julian Assange properly, and that this is somehow a betrayal of its left/progressive base.
This basically assumes what Patrick Bateman and others have been saying about the Swedish extradition is correct – that it is a sham and merely a shadow play to get Julian Assange to the USA to face some unjust charges or detention without trial or some nonsense.
Whatever wikileaks has done is neither here nor there – the argument is that he is being persecuted by the USA via its proxy Sweden (heh), and that as a matter of human rights/justice we should be doing something to prevent him being extradited to Sweden.
The logic doesn’t follow. If he was a normal Joe who had been accused of sexual assault in Sweden, we would expect the process to progress where he faces questioning and charges (if appropriate) in Sweden.
There is a political dimension here that adds a frisson of conspiracy theory, but this is irrelevant to whether what is happening to him now is just/unjust. It is only “unjust” if you assume that he is unable to get a fair trial in Sweden, and you assume that the USA is just getting him to Sweden to spirit him away – ie the Swedish government and judicial system is nothing more than a front for American policy. That’s a ludicrous assertion, and I won’t believe it for a second until the day that he is “spirited away” to the USA.
by Jackol on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Yep, yes, and yes.
Spook.
by Scringler on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:28 pm
I’m forming an opinion on the material I’ve read and my knowledge of the legal system.
I think there are real concerns for the following reasons:
- what he’s accused of isn’t a crime in Britain
- his accuser’s known and alleged associations
- statements from Swedish lawyers unconnected with the case that him being extradited on the basis of such allegations is highly unusual
Basically experience and common sense tell me that if he wasn’t a high profile thorn in the side of a number of very powerful governments, there is absolutely no way in hell he would be being extradited.
You seem to know a bit about the process, so you would know that it’s not the “Swedish justice system” which has to be “completely subverted” – all it takes is certain discretionary decisions (principally those of the relevant investigating authority in Sweden) to go a certain way and the courts then have minimal scope to intervene. And if you think that politically motivated prosecutions don’t happen in a “modern western democratic country” you really are naive.
Ok, for starters, it’s not a “conspiracy theory”, there has been open talk about getting him to the US. Various members of their political elite have openly discussed trying him or assassinating him.
I agree that his high profile helps. However, it won’t prevent him from being subjected to things like secret hearings (national security!) or military tribunals (national security!) if that’s what the Americans decide to do.
Look at how things turned out for Hicks, who is a similar case in some ways (not that Assange has done anything as stupid as head off to a war zone to fight for the other side). An idiot – undoubtedly. But he was still tortured, detained without trial then forced to admit his guilt in order to avoid further torture and detention without trial. Yet our government (another modern western democracy) rolls on on the basis that he is a “convicted terrorist”.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:28 pm
So you honestly thing that if a random non-famous guy had consensual sex with a random girl in Sweden, then months later she made highy dubious and inconsistent allegations along the lines of those made against Assange, that extradition proceedings of this nature would be underway?
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:31 pm
deblonay @ 2452;
I think you have pretty much summarised how many who are semi to apolitical think about all this. Too many politicians in too many countries for too long have been telling great big porkies in their minds. Therefore as far as they are concerned Assange = good, Pollies = bad.
I’m not saying he is right or that everything he has done is right, indeed more than enough evidence is beginning to emerge as to his ‘prattishness’, but I’m saying that is how many non-PBers in particular frame it.
And their perception is their reality until it changes.
by grantplant on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:33 pm
What’s your point? Because China are really, really nasty we don’t have to worry about how we act in the west unless we’re as nasty as them?
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Gough1 – a sensible analysis.
by Lynchpin on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Agreed.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Patrick Bateman
so you don’t actually want Assange to be subject to the law, as you claim, but to be above it?
I honestly think that if Joe Average was accused of behaving inappropriately with any girl (now she’s ‘random’, before you were suggesting she wasn’t) and refused to answer the police’s questions on the matter, we’d be rightly suspicious.
If the man then fought extradition with all his might, hiring internationally famous lawyers to support his case, and it was found (by a completely different court system, btw) that he should go back and face questioning, we’d think that the other country must have a fair case to extradite him.
If you were told that he shouldn’t go back to that country to face questioning, because that country was going to hand him over to an entirely different country (a case which I’m sure was put to the British courts), you’d really start thinking the guy had something to hide.
But Joe Average wouldn’t behave like that. Joe Average – particularly a Joe Average who knew he was innocent – would front up at the police station for questioning.
by zoomster on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm
What does this have to do with anything? (And as his various appeals against his extradition have shown, the courts in the UK obviously don’t see this as having anything to do with anything either).
If he had done to me what it’s claimed he did to these women, I would expect him to be charged – unsafe sex without consent is a big deal regardless of what I might have consented to earlier. Brushing off potential HIV exposure etc as ‘not a crime in Britain’ is … callous.
Uh, sorry, I don’t see how you can know that. That only follows after you’ve already assumed that he shouldn’t be charged with anything, and that he hasn’t broken Swedish law.
There are a lot of people in the US political system who say many things for domestic political consumption that has very little to do with what actually happens or could happen. Hairy chested nationalism is very popular to domestic audiences; it means very little in terms of what US agencies do.
Should I watch everything that Michelle Bachmann says because she speaks for the American government?
Did you see where I put in a proviso about Julian Assange not being ‘Guantanamoed’? I don’t think there’s any suggestion that he will be held in secret or outside the USA etc IF the conspiracy theory holds up for him being extradited to the USA.
Look, IF the USA actually do sneak him out of Sweden, I will join you in your outrage.
Until they do, this is just speculation feeding into wild accusations of the ALP betraying him and its core principles, which I object to given that the process that Julian Assange has been subjected to so far is entirely legitimate, regardless of the merits of the case against him (and you’ve airbrushed out the case against him as being entirely baseless, which I don’t believe to be the case – arguable, certainly, but not baseless).
by Jackol on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:43 pm
zoomster – you and I have a very different understanding of the presumption of innocence. You are quite focused on what people “have to hide”.
Not sure how much experience you have of the criminal legal system. But police would rarely charge something like that in their own country (or prosecutors prosecute it) due to having higher priorities and lack of resources together with it being a he said/she said where her story is inconsistent. Let alone throw a large legal team at the task of extracting someone from o/s for the purpose. If they extradicted someone on the basis of wanting to question them (not necessarily charge them) in every such case the courts would be completely filled with extradition hearings.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Patrick
I’m pro-Wikileaks to a degree but Assange isn’t above the law. If several judges in the UK say he should be extradited, I’m happy to bow to their expertise and better knowledge of the case.
by Diogenes on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Oh dear, Scringler, you’re making me feel guilty about MG. I’m another who read her religiously for many years but got a bit cheese through the latter Howard years and I just wish she could explain her dislike for JG. By using Ms Gillard all the time instead of even occasionally using PM shows a lack of respect, not merely for the achievement of the PM, but for the office.
Her sessions with Kelly on RN are no longer interesting. Her objectivity has gone. Pity.
by BH on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Bludgers I’ll be on Newcastle at 4.30 today discussing today’s post
http://www.abc.net.au/newcastle/
by Aristotle on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Yep, let him have his holiday. We’ve got 2 years to remind him of his sloppiness and pure fabrications.
by BH on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:46 pm
But to be expected from the “internet hard left”, many of whom were absolutely convinced, right up until the day of Obama’s election, that George W. Bush was going to declare martial law under some trumped-up pretense, suspend the presidential election, and basically install himself as dictator in perpetuum.
by The Claw on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Margaret is married to Barry Court – former president of the WA Liberal Party:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/12256170/legend-condemns-gay-marriage/
by Frank Calabrese on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Jackol – I’ve got to go so can’t answer your thoughtful post point by point.
Let me put it this way. You may be right. And he might have committed the crime, and this whole process may have happened in an above board way.
But there are very real concerns that this is not the case. The history of the 20th and early 21st Century shows that the US is well capable of going to great and elaborate lengths to achieve its goals. If it’s prepared to assassinate people in other countries at will (Pakistan and lately Iran) and murder Bin Laden rather than put him on trial, it’s prepared to do anything. The Cold War has left it with an elaborate and highly skilled international intelligence network. None of this is a conspiracy theory, it’s just how it is.
All legal niceties aside, I simply do not believe this passes the “cui bono” test – a highly unusual effort to extradite a guy who just happens to be the biggest source of embarassment for the USA since a certain bearded maniac’s plan came off in September 2001.
By the time Assange is in the US, it will be far too late for him. His only real hope is that enough fuss gets made now to prevent that happening.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 7, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Frank Calabrese@2482
So I assume the Rev. Court has a her own interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12:
And yet the anti-homosexual stuff is the literal word of God.
by Musrum on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:03 pm
The EU is a member of the “internet hard left”, it would appear:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6360817.stm
It must be nice living in your nice safe world, where real things which are actually happening and very frigtening are just crazy conspiracy theories.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Patrick
Which it has been.
Firstly, it has to be one of the most publicised cases in recent times. The chances that any legal chicanery could be gotten away with in those circumstances is thus almost nill.
Secondly, the extradition trial has been a long drawn out process, with high profile lawyers (who are also highly qualified) on both sides. The chances that even the smallest legal quibble hasn’t been examined are thus almost nill.
Thirdly, pro Assange nutters have trawled over every single bit of available evidence in order to find evidence of some sort of conspiracy between the US, British and Swedish legal systems. Like you, they are reduced to veiled hints (it’s the vibe).
If the US is prepared to do anything to get Assange, they’ve had plenty of opportunities. I’m fairly sure a long drawn out legal process which gives him more publicity is not part of the master plan.
Oh, and I’m presuming Assange is innocent. That’s why I find it so hard to understand why he ran away to another country to avoid answering a few questions.
by zoomster on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I don’t know if Finns commented on the quarterly GDP figure of +1.0%, quite fetching as numbers go.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-07/abs-national-accounts-first-quarter/3717298?section=business
However the two speed economy bit really is showing up, not least here in SA, where things are very hopeful if Olympic Dam projects starts in the new year, but terribly quiet in the mean time, with SA state cutting spending this year:
by Socrates on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Margaret Court – or the Reverend Margaret Court as she now styles herself- has been a devout Pentecostal (aka happy-clapper) Christian for years. Her hard-line views on homosexuality and gay marrriage are typical of followers of her brand of Chrisitanity. She has campigned hard and viciously against homosexuality (which she believes can be ‘cured’), especially in the tennis world and opposed WA state moves to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights as defactocouples. She is a religious bigot of the worst kind.
by leone on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Her Hubby’s influence as Liberal Party President gave us State members such as Ian Britza, Peter Abetz (Erica’s Brother) and Albert Jacobs.
Nuff said.
by Frank Calabrese on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:13 pm
BH,
Not my intention, it’s just that there should be some recognition of her contribution to journalism over so many years.
It’s said that young people start off as radical Cod-damned commos but, as they age, go all conservative, as in Mr G. Khan. Maybe that happened to Michelle. This is not rational behaviour, so let it rest.
But, the question does remain: Michelle Grattan. Why do you hate the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard?
by Scringler on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:16 pm
As for Assange a few issues to remember:
1. He has not been charged with any crime.
2. He is not accused of having committed any crime
3. He is wanted on a European arrest warrant (EAW) for questioning in relation to a complaint filed by two former lovers. WE have not heard from these lovers since the complaint was filed. It is not possible for them to withdraw their complaint in Sweden. Once the complaint is lodged, they lose control of the process. It is quite possible that they were manipulated during an emotional low. Assange accuser may have ceased co-operating
4. Legal opinion in Sweden is that there is a very low likelihood of conviction on any but the smallest misdemeanor. Nordic Legal Scholars: Assange Conviction Unlikely
5. Swedish prosecutors have refused to question him in London.
6. No court of law in Sweden has requested his extradition, the arrest warrant is the initiative of a solitary Swedish prosecutor.
7. There is no “allegation” that Swedish due process has been subverted by the USA; it is an established fact that the Swedish authorities have been complicit in extraordinary renditions on behalf of the USA. Such practices are now supposedly prohibited; but there is no doubt that Julian Assange would be extradited to the USA at the drop of a hat. All legal of course.
8. The USA is a quasi fascist police/military State that extra-judiciously executes their own citizens, and does not miss a beat in their daily slaughter of non-citizens. Contrary to popular perception; it does incarcerate people on its own soil without trail or conviction. No doubt Assanghe would disappear into a legal black hole should he extradited to the US, and should it be possible, they will trey him for a capital offense and try to execute him; after due process naturally.
9. Any Australian that hopes for the extradition of Assange to either the lickspittle Sweden, or the quasi-Fascist USA, is a shameless water carrier for fascism, and beneath contempt. Hardly of the left, or right or any decent grouping of human being.
by JohD on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Patrick Bateman -
I certainly agree that the USA must always be scrutinized very very closely. During the cold war there was serious paranoia that translated into some very dark things – McCarthyism, nuclear arms races, cloak and dagger bullshit all over the world etc, and post cold-war the power vacuum that resulted in a fixation on basically constructing a new enemy through anti-terrorism (and by proxy anti-Islam) as the way to provide meaning to the strong military/patriotic/nationalistic elements of US society.
Certainly not everyone, everywhere is given access to a courtroom, lawyers and constitutional protections by the USA.
I don’t, however, see how it is possible for Julian Assange to end up being one of those people. His profile means that he simply can’t be locked up somewhere – what happens to him and how it happens to him will be known and publicized, and rightly so. If only everyone who was treated unjustly by the US government had access to as much publicity and scrutiny as Julian Assange.
So, while I do understand where the fear comes from that the USA will do something (effectively) extra-judicial, and the USA should always be watched closely to make sure it lives up to its own ideals because it has/does slip, I’m primarily pointing out that at the moment, these are fears and cautions only – nothing out of the ordinary has happened yet, nothing that violates the cause of justice. Saying that judicial procedures should be suspended on the fear that something irregular may occur just doesn’t work in my book.
Further, and it’s not related to my central argument as I’ve already outlined it, it seems like there is now no point in the USA doing something extreme. The negative outcomes for the USA (and there would, as I’ve said above, be plenty of transparency and publicity about whatever might happen to Julian Assange) would be severe, serious and lasting. What could the USA hope to gain by persecuting Julian Assange now? If they wanted to shut wikileaks down, they’ve basically succeeded through the dodginess of the Paypal/Visa/Mastercard shutting down financial donations to wikileaks, along with the personality conflicts within wikileaks itself. Stomping on Julian Assange won’t make wikileaks any less effective (as it’s basically cactus right now anyway), and won’t stop the other sites that are stepping up to the mark. It won’t make Julian Assange less of an international celebrity, quite the opposite.
ie it would be a serious mistake for the USA to do any of the things that you are sure they will do.
Now maybe they won’t be thinking rationally about it, and just be following those cowboy words you were referring to from various members of congress earlier – if so I will take it as a sign of the impending collapse of the American polity, and I’ll expect Julia Gillard to be on the phone to the US president every hour of every day to get him home – and the domestic pressure on Julia Gillard to do just that will be overwhelming, to be sure.
by Jackol on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:18 pm
leone@2488
American brand Christianity. A bit like American Cheese.
by Musrum on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Presumably more contemporary translations than the King James version say something along the lines of “STFU, bitch”.
by William Bowe on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:19 pm
You just blew your argument with that VERY silly statement.
by Frank Calabrese on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:19 pm
The cuts in Govt spending made a -0.5% change in the GDP numbers. So I reckon Swanee has it about right. The Federal Govt has to return to surplus or we will return to Howard times of inflation caused by Govt.
by ruawake on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Musrum
Exactly. So-called ‘Christians’ like Court pick and choose which Bible verses they want to use. St Paul also said that women should keep silent in church because it’s shameful for a woman to speak there. Obviouly something else Rev Court ignores. She chooses to believe two Bible verses that vaguely say homosexuality is sinful. One of these is in Leviticus and forms part of old Jewish law. The same Old Testament book also approves of slavery, says it’s OK to sell your daughter and perfectly fine to kill your neighbour if he works on the Sabbath. i’m sure the Rev Court doen’t hold to these commandments. Eating pork and shellfish is also seen as an abombination. I wonder what the Rev Court willl be serving for Christmas dinner this year?
by leone on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Assenge and the Labor Right
____________________
If all this had happened under Howard there would be few on this blog who would have supported the US moves to get him to the USA where Obama has already set up a grand Jury to make indictments,which will see him in jail forever
BTW.. Great stuff you are posting Patrick. B
…would do credit to Tom Paine !
You are putting the DLPers here to flight !
by deblonay on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I don’t think people like Margaret Court, Bishop Pell and all the other looneys out there with their imaginary friends have any idea just how foolish they look to people who have no illusions as to the metaphysical nature of the world.
by Barking on Dec 7, 2011 at 4:25 pm