An evening of learning, proposed by Federal Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, to keep us safe online. And what an excellent job Dan Bryant did of making both the why and the how clear in his workshop. Dan is a ‘conscientious objector’ systems engineer from the private sector, who joined the Greens to help refugees and keep the internet a fair playing field.

CRYPTOPARTY LIKE IT'S 1984 systems engineer and tutor - DAN BRYANT

The ‘Cryptoparty Like It’s 1984′ event is in 4 parts, and I’ve documented that into 3 films; the fourth being an interaction with the audience (whom I did not film for the entirety of the evening). The first is a preamble from Greens MP Jamie Parker and Senator Scott Ludlam; the second a cyber-security work-shop; and the third a Q&A with Ludlam and NSW Greens Candidate for Newtown, Jenny Leong.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussies… whether or not you like knights and dames, methinks it’s time to castle. With both major parties bull-dozing their way into our private lives, with the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015, on *someone’s* behalf, the sensible reaction is to don the Invisibility Cloak. Go Dark! This trove of Australian metadata will likely become a target for penetration and theft world-wide; so best not to allow one’s own data-set to become vulnerable. Hell knows they haven’t thought it through about how to compensate us, if we all get robbed.

CRYPTOPARTY LIKE IT'S 1984 - Dan explains how TOR works

What I fear is that global surveillance provides a means for a global elite, to learn the ‘Deepest Secret Fear’ of any opponent; and to thwart their every move in advance. Metadata essentially monitors networks of communications, not just individuals; so this power extends over groups of all kinds, be it political parties, unions, journalists or activists defending their water supplies and farmlands.

The Greens are the only large political party opposing this ‘accident waiting to happen’ / totalitarian-corporate take-over. Senator Ludlam has decided to spread the word, far and wide, on how to really protect Australia. Every technique you learn in this workshop is entirely legal, and safe for use. If you can get yourself a decent VPN (virtual private network), it may even speed up your internet connection.

CITIZENFOUR (the Edward Snowden story) screened in Sydney this evening, ahead of its release in Australian cinemas on February 12th. What an amazing film. Yeah, it’s a documentary, but it felt more like a spy-thriller from the edge of my seat. As the film unfolds, the (real-life) revelations about global surveillance are of red-pill proportions – both on and off-screen – and change forever your perceptions of the world we live in, even when you’ve been interested in this area for some time. Take Glenn Greenwald’s reaction, for example. No spoilers, except to say that Big Data is watching you.

The avant premiere and Q&A was presented by Senator Scott Ludlam, our strongest parliamentary voice in Australia against the Surveillance State. He was questioned at length by the Aussie audience, about recent plans by our right-wing government to introduce mandatory data retention for all Australians. Of course we suspect that the reason for doing this is more about business than security, and after seeing CITIZENFOUR, it’s clear that the NSA, a partner of our spooks in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, has got us all under their eye already. Our boys can tap into that dragnet, for genuine National Security reasons. But the NSA too collects a lot of information that doesn’t assist national security.

Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam presents CITIZENFOUR by Laura Poitras

Senator Ludlam’s remarks this week in parliament, suggested that the government’s version of Mandatory Data Retention is a pretty ineffective tool of surveillance, since it doesn’t capture data from offshore mail services, like Gmail. Nor does it retain online chat, on platforms such as Facebook. But it is good for driving us away from Australian ISPs (Internet Server Providers), and catching people who illegally download copyright material.

The package is stamped ‘National Security’, but the contents monitor consumers; not terrorists. And this tool serves to police legislation that relates to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). There is a clause that more or less obliges the governments of member States to protect each other’s corporate interests. In fact governments can be sued by overseas business entities, if they are seen to legislate in a way that harms trade.

We must see of great significance, concurrent moves to make copyright violation no longer a civil, but criminal matter. That would mean that our government would have to pursue breaches, rather than an individual plainiff, as has always been the case. In the longer term, metadata retention may be used to monitor and restrict what we buy online, especially if a foreign corporation in a member state claims that our choice – of pharmaceuticals, for example – harms their business. Word is, that US business entities actually write the legislation you need to join the TPP, and USG rubber stamps that, before passing it on to applicants.

Scott Ludlam will be talking in more detail about these issues on Thursday evening at another Sydney event, Politics in the Pub, in a session entitled ‘The Meaning of Metadata’. Joining him for an explosive expose and one-hour Q&A, will be National Security journalist and ex foreign affairs policy advisor, Dr Philip Dorling; as well as Samantha Castro, former spokesperson and National Council member of the Wikileaks Party and co-founder of WACA (the Whistleblowers, Activists and Citizens Alliance). The event will be viewable on the Politics in the Pub website on February 7th.

Senator Scott Ludlam is back! with another viral video addressing Australia’s Prime Minister, Tony “Dum Dum” Abbott. Aussies were wowed by Ludlam’s fiery “Welcome to Western Australia” speech, in anticipation of Abbott’s visit to WA earlier this year. The speech got close to a million views within days, and Ludlam is indeed widely followed and cited by Australians across social media. So why all the politicians leave the Senate when Ludlam speaks is a mystery. Could it be as simple as Metadataphobia?

Meanwhile, news from Rap News…

“The G20 Summit is happening and the leaders of the wealthiest nations on the planet are converging on Australia to come and learn directly at the feet of the master of fascist dystopian fuckwittery: Tony Abbott. Join the noble Australian Prime Minister as he lists his recent achievements and launches the opening of the G20 Summit in Australia, backed by a faithful and compliant mainstream media, represented by our favourite local correspondent Ken Oathcarn.

This episode features a magical cameo from Wizard Senator Scott Ludlam, who has been campaigning tirelessly in speeches to empty Senate rooms to stop the Government’s proposed mandatory data retention laws – coming up soon for a vote in the Senate. After this G20 episode, no one will be in any doubt why Australia is leading the civilised world in the global race to towards 1984.”

Written and created by Giordano Nanni and Hugo Farrant in a suburban backyard home studio in Melbourne, Australia, on Wurundjeri Land. Juice Rap News

Special thanks to Scott Ludlam for working on this video, and for all his tireless work to fend off the forces of Mordor.

#StopDataRetention: http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/campaigns/stopdataretention

BREAKING: Ludlam Senate address (28/10/14)

Foreword…

The following article was written prior to the removal of Robyn Irene’s ‘The Betrayal of Julian’ from the Western Australian newspaper The Stringer. Since Robyn’s article was also published on Indymedia, my reference links are now pointing to that site.

“DON’T GIVE IT OXYGEN!” was temporarily approved for publication by The Stringer’s founder, Gerry Georgatos, but I was advised within the hour, that the newspaper had opted instead to remove Robyn Irene’s ‘The Betrayal of Julian’ .

A shame – and painfully ironic? – that “DON’T GIVE IT OXYGEN!” cannot address the same audience, but I respect Mr Georgatos’ wishes to have “never published ‘The Betrayal of Julian’ in the first place”, for the reasons he stated.

I also appreciate Gerry’s kind advice that I try uploading my article to the other site, Indymedia, where he is apparently a ‘Trusted User’ with publishing rights for his own and other writers’ articles. Robyn Irene may also be an Indymedia ‘Trusted User’, so I would advise her, Gerry or Anonymous (name listed as the publisher of ‘The Betrayal of Julian’) to carefully re-read the Indymedia Editorial Policy:

“Newswire articles and/or comments will not be placed on our promoted newswire if they are [among other things] (1) inaccurate: posts that are inaccurate or misleading; (2) from political parties: the newswire is designed to generate a news resource, not a notice-board for political parties; and (3) a personal attack: articles and/or comments that contain abusive language against other activists or site users.” (coughs…)

“DON’T GIVE IT OXYGEN!”

One should not call accounts of events “slander” unless one knows that it is, from having witnessed the events, or seen evidence that leaves no doubt that the accounts are untrue. Calling truthful accounts slander is a catalyst for the Martha Mitchell Effect, a phenomenon that psychologist Brendan Maher named after Martha Beall Mitchell. Mrs. Mitchell was the wife of John Mitchell, Attorney-General in the Nixon administration. When she alleged that White House officials were engaged in illegal activities, her claims were conspiratorially deemed to be the result of mental illness. Ultimately, the facts of the Watergate scandal vindicated her, but the label: “Cassandra of Watergate” was nevertheless slung upon her.

Journalism that guesses whistle-blower accounts to be slander, on no evidence, is likely to have a hidden agenda – shoot the messenger and bury the truth? – but its deepest vice is probably loyalty. When one becomes but an echo of hearsay, one is right up the other end of the spectrum from the scientific journalism of Wikileaks, even when defending the organisation, its political wing, or the behaviour of members. That would surely be the beginning of the end, as would be the suppression of documents…

From Shining the Light, to the Dark Side…

Activist Robyn Irene’s punch-in-the-face, factually imprecise and somewhat whacko article: ‘The Betrayal of Julian’ (Oh those Judases! – and him all naked, but for his crown of thorns…) that was recently given a respectable airing in The Stringer – Independent News, is a good example of whistleblower-bashing and ‘forgetfulness’ to check: “Would my claims stand up in Court?”. The author of the article might also have asked: “Is mention of my friend’s erotic dreams about Julian Assange, the Christ figure, really serving the purpose I want it to?”, and perhaps… “Do I have any EVIDENCE that it was ASIO, and not my Mitty-like meanderings?”.

The publisher’s ABOUT page states:
“The Stringer was founded by media academic and producer Jennifer Kaeshagen and by multi-award winning investigative journalist Gerry Georgatos”.

It doesn’t mention anywhere on The Stringer’s website that Gerry Georgatos was also the WA candidate for the Wilileaks Party in the last Senate Elections. He was, and is likely to run again on April 5th, since the AEC did not permit Julian Assange to stand in WA. It wouldn’t be clear therefore, to many readers, that ‘The Betrayal of Julian’ is favourable copy for both Georgatos’ Party and his Candidacy, even if the hefty personal attack on some of the party’s resignees is obvious.

Gazing upwards, I can see how ‘Robyn Irene’, as sanitising agent, would be attractive. Her romantic, narrative style and the characters she describes – one of which, in the first person – would also appeal - Ordinary citizen gives testimony of her noble and dangerous adventure with secret agents! It’s all a bit ‘True Lies’ but perfect for drawing supporters into the story. I’m saddened that a multi-award winning investigative journalist involved with Wikileaks would let such pulp fiction through the door.

But soft, what light through yonder Windows breaks?

I don’t expect anyone to do anything about Robyn Irene’s hack-attack, especially WACA, who have more significant battles to fight, but as a matter of courtesy and good form, ‘The Betrayal of Julian’ begs some response, in defence of a number of people’s GOOD faith, and respect for the whole truth… Amen. Rest assured, that there will be no Biblical dream sequences or contagious paranoia, but I’ll be damned if I think this baby will be given any oxygen by Nurse Irene.

Robyn Irene – aka Robyn Connell Jackson – in her thesis on betrayal – sets out with a critique of a recently published chronicle called ‘Ghosting’ by Andrew O’Hagan (ghost writer for Julian Assange’s unauthorised biography). You’d never know, because she fails to mention the title of O’Hagan’s work, and just refers to it as “his piece”. That’s a typical supporter strategy – “Don’t give it oxygen!” – but how the editorial staff of The Stringer did not pick up on the absence of a title to a work Jackson is describing, I do not know…

Another ‘betrayal of Julian’ is cited. This one is within the context of the Wikileaks Party election campaign. Well on topic for ‘suppression of documents’, but with a cached message: “Don’t bother looking. There’s absolutely nothing to see here!” – Jackson chooses to mention leaked emails that “prove something everybody knew already…”. Circling angrily around the “drama” that caused the WLP mass resignations, she never says what the actual drama was. No mention either of interviews that readers could consult, or of leaked phone recordings – one of which a certain blogger, “Educated Class” was complaining about a while back, to ex Wikileaks Party Office-bearer David Haidon.

We have heard extracts of that recording; and of another, between John Noble Shipton, father of Julian Assange, & WACA, two women who founded the Wikileaks Australian Citizen’s Alliance, and sat on the Wikileaks Party’s National Council last year. Jackson attacks WACA, exactly in the manner as the attack-site Rixstep did within hours of the women’s resignations, for their apparent role in the WLP’s failure in last year’s Senate elections. It would seem that Jackson remains ignorant of, or hasn’t ‘given oxygen’ to the recordings of phone conversations on the day of the resignations, wherein one can hear the Party’s CEO John Shipton proposing, in no uncertain terms, that WACA resign if they won’t ‘wear’ an ‘administrative error’ scenario, to explain what happened to the WLP’s NSW preferences.

Shipton was aware by that time that the NSW preferences had been ‘tweaked’ by a small number of people, unbeknownst to most of the National Council, but it seems he wanted to avoid a disaster in divulging that. Had he considered the gravity of the ultimatum he was giving to WACA, or was it delivered in exhasperation? Had he anticipated how people from an organisation that supports whistle-blowing and aspires to Truth, Transparency and Justice [WACA's motto] would feel, as Party representatives, surpressing information and propagating a story the wife will believe – or not…? The call Shipton made in that moment was possibly the greater of two evils. One pathway – quarantine the problem and apologise to the members and voters, as WACA suggested – might have kept the supporters together and not necessarily lost the election. A ‘Scandal of Pointless Treachery’ [The Shooters & Fishers Party did not reciprocate] would also have made headlines and high-lighted our integrity. The other pathway – bury it – would rip at the very identity of our social bond: shining the light.

And the truth did set them free…

Only extracts of the Shiton-WACA and Shipton-Haiden recordings have been published, as yet, but I’ve heard both in their entirety and can report. First of all, there’s no doubt in my mind that I was listening to the voice of John Noble Shipton, whom I’ve spent a lot of time with since 2011. That the other voices were those of Sam Castro, Karen Cochrane, and David Haidon, has been confirmed to me personally by those people.

Since the integral recordings have not been published, I’ll sum them up, but in enough detail to enlighten the debate. In the first recording, WACA and Shipton are trying to determine for some time, just what the hell had happened with the Party’s Preferences, since what was voted on by the National Council was not what was reported to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). In the course of the discussion, it seems there are things that Shipton was unaware of, regarding the actions of certain key players in the campaign (not WACA) and he sounds distraught by what he is discovering. He also explains to WACA some shit that’s been going down on his end.

Kelly Tranter, 2013 NSW Candidate for the WLP: "An administrative error"

When it’s clear to all parties that the WLP’s National Council has been gesummt in two States, and that WACA know who is responsible – because of a confession and an email trail – the real conflict begins. The women try hard to convince Shipton that the WLP must remain truthful and transparent, at all costs. Shipton’s position is that an Independent Review in the middle of an election campaign is suicidal. One can understand both sides – I felt his fear on the way to talking to the resignees, and their nausea after l arrived. What became clear on hearing the recordings, was that they were diametrically opposed, and that their desired courses of action were mutually exclusive. Robyn is perhaps right in saying it could have been resolved, but Shipton, in the heat of the moment, closed all doors by instructing the women to resign if they would not go his way. I was a close friend of John Shipton, but have to admit that he could have handled that moment better.

On personal experience and direct knowledge.

Robyn Connell Jackson met John Shipton for the first time on September 15th 2012 at the Aboriginal passport ceremony. I was documenting the event, at John’s request, and had asked him to come outside so we could film his ‘arrival’. She appeared out of nowhere, and awkwardly interrupted the recording of his speech to introduce herself. It was also the first time Robyn and I had stood face-to-face, but we knew each other online through the Wikileaks network.

I saw Robyn at one (1) WLP meeting after that and never, at any of our events; all of which I attended. Her claim of “personal experience and direct knowledge” is nil in relation to the Melbourne events that constituted The Wikileaks Party “drama” . Her only personal experience is as detailed above, and the imagined encounter with ‘Mr Brown Overcoat’ in a “busy Sydney cafe”. You know, if I had been The Stringer’s editor, I would have scratched that episode. It reminded me of a crazy bloke who once maintained to me that someone was “standing there watching your house from across the road”. It was a bus stop.

Jackson’s tales of ‘The Faction’ have their origin in hearsay, and are recounted in apparent ignorance of a second body of evidence, recorded shortly before the mass resignations. In that recording, Shipton attempts to charm the Victorian Volunteer Co-ordinator, David Haidon, away from his fellow activists into a smaller group (faction?) that will bypass the authority of the National Council. Stand-up comedian and former WLP Social Media Co-ordinator, Sean Bedlam, reported that he too was a recipient of that proposition. He mentioned that Shipton said he wanted to “tear the women’s faces off”, and that he, as someone who deals in harsh language as a comedian, found that harsh…

Maintaining some perspective…

I went to Melbourne to listen to what these people had to say and let them prove it. One must be even-handed, and in this case, compassionate. They WERE clearly heart-broken, just as Leslie Cannold had said on ‘Lateline’, One cried for two hours on the phone to me. The evidence was presented soon after I arrived. Then and only then did I know that they were telling the truth.

It has been disappointing, to say the least, to see good people parroting a story they haven’t verified, and being leveraged into smearing former friends and allies; great activists whose word and hearts they had come to trust, and with whom they were moving mountains. It’s clear both sides of the WLP schizm would want to save Julian and Wikileaks, if either were threatened, but those who protect the ‘scenario’ are trying to claim that the ‘principled faction’, who resigned rather than bull-shit the Australian people, want to destroy the party AND Wikileaks! According to Rolling Stone, loyalty is valued above all else and garners favour… and of course exposing corruption within the WLP could be damaging to Wikileaks. Everyone has feared that, but Christine Assange’s request to stop attacking/defending each other and concentrate on getting the truth out was only half-heard and barely heeded. No one felt comfortable revealing the whole truth, and others became reluctant to probe for it. Then in the midst of that gridlock, Shipton moved forward with his ‘Independent Review’. “What we already knew” there was confirmed by its author, as a disclaimer. The ‘auditor’ was a Party Member. What we weren’t informed of was that Samantha Castro’s submission to the Review had been suppressed.

Live a lie; die a lie…

The irony and cognitive dissonance was agonising. It drove many away.

Members who hung in there with the Party to “give them a chance to redeem themselves”, later admitted to having blocked their ears completely, in cult-like fashion, to what the “Faction” – Shipton’s challengers – had to say. Others withdrew from the Wikileaks movement completely, and have not come back. We are weaker, because the truth could not be told. It’s tragic for all of us, since there seems to be no question now of going back to the crossroads and taking the more ‘noble’ pathway. From her distant mountain perch, remaining devotee Robyn Connell Jackson parrots a blame game.

Julian Assange admitted and apologised for not ‘being there’ himself. Minutes of meetings that the Party did release, as well as Dan Matthews’ statement, revealed that Julian had only attended one of 13 council meetings – the first, if memory serves. What the leaked emails told us that we DIDN’T know – and Jackson didn’t mention, is that Julian appeared to be unaware his “promise” to Scott Ludlam would be broken in WA by the other last-minute switch.

Why campaign manager Greg Barns, apparently on his own initiative, advised Gerry Georgatos to preference BOTH of the Nationals’ Candidates could be a question that will never be answered…

Assange did some very good things rather than micro-managing his father’s disastrous WLP project. He helped free Edward Snowdon; monitored Chelsea Manning’s trial; and kept a close eye on a mounting crisis in Syria. He also spent a lot of time worrying about and trying to counter the hypothetical effects of the feature film: ‘The Fifth Estate’. Maybe a little less time on that and just one more NC meeting attended – the last one before the Preferences were submitted, for example – and the Party’s faux pas might have been avoided.

In the end, we all support JA and the Wikileaks organisation. Many would also support Assange running in the future as an Independent Candidate in the Senate, working in tandem with Senator Scott Ludlam; to save our souls, our refugees and our planet from the Abbott Government.

The “Don’t Give it Oxygen” style of unscientific journalism that has reached its zenith with evangilists for the WLP, is a kind of succubus that has emerged from the sound body of Wikileaks. O’Hagan’s memoirs would suggest that this demon has always been there, as the dark side of Julian Assange. If this phenomenon is due to the influence and subsequent emergence of his father, then the Darth Vadar image is apt, and the integrity of the organisation in danger of crumbling.

That Julian Assange can’t reveal his own secrets is acceptable, but only in the case where he is doing great ethical hacking – which is possibly, what he should stick to. Going into JTRIG mode – “Destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt” – with friends and allies, in the case of any disagreement, is not going to do it in party politics, either for Luke or Darth.

It’s clear for Michael Pearce QC that Australians will have to raise their voice (scream blue murder?) as they eventually did about the plight of David Hicks, before their government will offer the political and diplomatic assistance Julian Assange needs to resolve his current situation.

Mr Assange is currently trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, despite having been granted asylum, since police outside have been briefed to arrest him “under all circumstances”. Curiously, this extraordinary predicament is the result of one judicial authority’s decision; the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny, who refuses after two years to question him anywhere or anyhow but in person and in Sweden.

Ms Ny has admitted since February 4th 2012 that she could very well use Mutual Legal Assistance, a commonly employed method of interviewing suspects in other countries, but for reasons she will not explain, deems this process “inappropriate” in the case of Assange.

Ny has also refused Ecuador’s invitation to question Mr Assange at their London embassy and has insisted that he be extradited. Lawyer Susan Benn, who spoke outside the Ecuadorian embassy the day Assange arrived there, has pointed out that this “more appropriate” method will involve Assange passing through Swedish custody (most probably for 4 days) before seeing the prosecutor.

Benn adds that this provides the ideal window of opportunity to open the sealed indictment for his temporary surrender to the US in relation to a charge of espionage, since this step necessitates Assange’s prior incarceration. It is perhaps only within this context that Ny’s actions could be deemed appropriate. The case should have been dropped in October 2010, when forensic analysis showed that the famous ripped condom, which served as her material evidence to re-open the investigation, was a fake.

Ny’s refusal to question Assange in a safe place has also permitted her to withhold other exculpatory evidence from his defence team; namely electronic records of conversations between her two clients, before they went to the police station to make an enquiry about STD testing.

Ove Bring, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law recently stated that the charges against Assange would probably have to be dropped following an interview, since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime”. That would appear to be an understatement, but as Naomi Wolf has pointed out, none of the Swedish players seem to be going for a win, since that is not the point of getting Assange to Sweden.

“Both women are being advised by the same high-powered, politically connected lawyer. That would never happen under normal circumstances because the prosecutor would not permit the risk of losing the case because of contamination of evidence and the risk of the judge objecting to possible coaching or shared testimony in the context of a shared attorney. So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.”

Marianne Ny is not the only one who is pushing her professional integrity to the limits. Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is also a lawyer, publicly announced that Assange had committed an illegal act by publishing material that had been sent to Wikileaks. Craig Murray, ex Bristish Ambassador to Usbekistan, not only informs us that other ambassadors around the world do not agree with the actions of Britain’s Foreign Minister William Hague; he also makes it clear that Mr Hague will be putting local police at risk of extradition to Ecuador if they enter the embassy to arrest Assange.

Back in Australia, Foreign Minister Bob Carr claimed that there was not the slightest hint that the US was gunning for Assange, only a week before news of the Grand Jury investigation broke. He was also contradicted by diplomats at the Australian embassy in Washington, who expressed no doubt that a request for extradition was on the cards.

On July 12th 2012, Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam challenged Bob Carr’s persistent denials that Julian Assange is in danger. Who would doubt it now, given the desperate measures numerous public figures are taking, and the international crisis that is building over the capture of someone who has not even been charged with a crime?

Australians should take note of Senator Ludlam’s assessment of the situation and respond en masse by writing IMMEDIATELY to their MPs; to demand not only consular, but political and diplomatic support for their fellow citizen. It is now appropriate that the Australian Government reiterate their request for DUE PROCESS according to international law, no matter how embarrassing it feels to argue Assange’s position as Australia’s first political refugee.

Safe passage to Ecuador must be granted by the UK and if Sweden refuses to question Mr Assange before he goes, so be it. Ecuador are convinced that he will be exposed to the risk of “temporary” surrender to the US – the terms of Obama’s NDAA can make that rather permanent – if prosecutor Ny’s wishes, and hers alone, be granted.

The Australian Government will only help Assange when the people object

More than 400 people crowded into a lecture theatre at the University of Technology on February 17 to attend a public forum, “Don’t shoot the messenger: WikiLeaks, Assange and Democracy”. It was organised by the newly formed Support Assange and WikiLeaks Coalition, with the support of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, T2T and the Stop the War Coalition, Sydney

John Pilger speaks from London - photo Peter Boyle

-

-

-

-

Speakers at the forum included socialist historian Humphrey McQueen, Greens Senator Scott Ludlum, London-based human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson and Christine Assange, the mother of Julian Assange.

Veteran journalist and former SBS broadcaster Mary Kostakidis chaired the meeting. She told the audience WikiLeaks had won several prestigious awards for excellence in journalism. She said the US government is persecuting WikiLeaks for publishing material that other media outlets have also published. The difference was that WikiLeaks has done it better, she said.

WIKILEAKS, ASSANGE & DEMOCRACY with Humphrey McQueen from CaTV on Vimeo.

“… all of human history the 1% have struggled to make sure that the 99% couldn’t read or write at all, let alone read what WikiLeaks has revealed.

The Church used Latin. The Russian Tsarists used French against their own population. When John Wycliffe tried to translate the Bible into English he managed to die before they got to him, but they dug his bones up and burnt them anyway. They were probably pretty convinced that he was in hell, but they thought they’d do the little bit extra that they could.

.

Slaves in America were flogged if they tried to learn to read. But the important thing is that the slaves resisted. They used what was available to them — which was the Old Testament — to write hymns of protest.

But it wasn’t only the Holy Inquisition that tried to stop people knowing what was going on in their world.

No less than the president of the Royal Society, the chief scientist in England, announced in the 18th century: “Giving education to the labouring classes of the poor will be prejudicial to their morals and happiness. It would teach them to despise their lot in life, instead of making them good servants in agriculture and other laborious employments to which their rank in society has destined them.

“Instead of teaching them subordination, it would enable them to read seditious pamphlets and render them insolent to their superiors.” This is the voice of science speaking, not the inquisition.”

Full transcript at: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50092

WIKILEAKS, ASSANGE & DEMOCRACY – with Scott Ludlam from CaTV on Vimeo.

“We hauled this poor fellow from Mastercard in to Parliament House the other day and asked him what the hell they were doing with this financial blockade on a publisher, more than a year after this blockade came down. That was a really interesting conversation; I can’t disclose what he said… [laughter] So why don’t YOU ask him?”

Full transcript at: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50091

“I wanted to start this evening with a Jewish curse that someone told me recently: “May you be involved in a lawsuit in which you know you are right.” [laughter]

No one knows the meaning of this curse any better than Julian Assange and his colleagues at WikiLeaks. Assange has been accused of many, many things. Everything from being anti-Semitic to being a Mossad agent – ” how you could be the two at the same time I don’t know.

US presidential candidates in the current presidential race in the US have called for his assassination.

The current US vice-president has called him a “high-tech terrorist”. Can you imagine inserting into that sentence [Guardian editor] Alan Rusbridger is a “high-tech terrorist”? [New York Times editor] Bill Keller is a “high-tech terrorist”?

Our own prime minister [Julia Gillard] has accused him of illegal conduct, prematurely, prejudicially and prior to announcing a full-scale criminal investigation, which of course resulted in the outcome that the Australian Federal Police disagreed with her.

US government propaganda, shamefully echoed by our own prime minister, accused WikiLeaks of publishing in breach of US law. But they are wrong.

What Julian does with WikiLeaks is not only right, it is morally right, it is ethically right and, as I’ll explain this evening, it is legally right.”

Full transcript at http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50090

“Here are the facts:

Both women involved in this “sex scandal” never alleged rape, but insisted that the sex was consensual and not violent.

Woman SW has actually complained about being railroaded and was so upset that Julian was charged with rape that she refused to sign her statement.

Woman AA, who took a condom to the police saying that Julian had deliberately torn a condom during sex – forensic examination proved there was not DNA from either her or Julian in it.”

Christine Assange

Full transcript at: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50089

All the Facts – by Christine Assange
wlcentral.org/node/2486