The US have had two major warnings already with the real estate bubble and the GFC and still have refused to regulate the banking sector, instead bailing them out unconditionally to the tune of $700 billion which they put towards their profits rather then using it to continue making loans and letting it trickle down to the people the bail out was supposed to protect.

This is what happens when you have an unregulated banking sector coupled with huge international debt.

My heart goes out to the Americans that are affected by this Wall Street crash. They didn’t ask for this, and certainly they don’t deserve it. When the Government allows itself to be manipulated by the banking lobby  and other interest groups under the guise of individual freedoms versus collective freedom enshrined in the constitution, it’s only a matter of time before something like this happens again.

Employment is dire in the US. Employment is at 9.2 per cent*.

Having just visited the US most of the people I met there are either related to or knows someone who has been laid off or has been laid off at least once themselves.

This isn’t some friend-of-a-friend type situation, this is real, and it effects everyone.

The most disturbing aspect is that of the people I spoke to, it was just a given. “Yeah, they were laid off”.

There was no anger in their voice, not even sadness. Just this weird passivity, some sort of acceptance that somehow this was inevitable.

I read this article about why young people aren’t fighting back, thanks largely to economic factors and an education system designed to make people obedient, but with no health care, a declining economy and a steadily depreciating social security asset. A recent study showed that the vast majority of young people believe that the pensions they pay into won’t be there for them when they go to their mailboxes 60 years from now.

Why are people not outraged?

I hope people will begin to rise up and demand better regulations that will protect Americans in the long run.

*Employment statistics are from June of this year.

We are two people with different beliefs who are united in our support of harm minimisation drug policy, and the Medically Supervised Injection Centre in the Cross in particular – Graham Long, Pastor of The Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross, and John August, non-believer and President of the NSW Humanists.

We both shake our heads at the level of shock jock inspired superficial analysis that passes for comment.

I (Graham Long) meet the effects of addiction on a daily basis and more than most people, sit with those who’ve lost hope and conduct a lot of funerals.  The ’shock jocks’ who carefully craft simple answers to complex questions get a shock themselves when they find I’m against their conservative, prohibitionist approach to drug laws.

Together with the Wayside Chapel, I’ve long supported the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre.  For those who can see past emotional arguments, the facts are astonishing.  The streets of Kings Cross are largely clear of needles.  At one time 130 needles every day were collected around the Chapel – nowadays, since the MSIC, one or two needles a day is a bad day.  Ambulance call outs to overdose have been reduced by 88%.  Deaths on the street have been reduced to about 10% of ten years ago.

The group that most longs for drug law reform are parents who’ve lost children to addiction.  They know as only grieving parents can know that their children might have lived if the they had been offered help.  They know that if we’d spent a fraction of the resources that our ‘war on drugs’ has cost that many people might have lived and found their way back to life.  Dead people never rehabilitate and return to the mainstream.

My approach is informed by Christianity; my whole faith journey is about love and the need to love every person as if they were my son or daughter, brother or sister.  Once the church once dangled people over the fires of hell to control them – but now that no one believes in hell, shock jocks dangle people with threats of the end of the world with equal effect.

I (John August) have a passion to see the world in a way that is free of emotional sentiments which prevent objective evaluation.  Much as I see the good in some religious belief – like what drives Graham – some religious belief seems driven by the “er-yuk” or “how-dare-they”sentiment.  It has a vested interest in branding people as well as behaviours as evil; requiring punishment, criminalisation; ever increasing control and little understanding.

We will never rid our society of the problems of addiction through laws and prohibition; the required changes are much more far reaching.  The most we can do at present is reduce the tragic results.  Many initiatives are criticised because the outcomes are less than perfect – but an improvement doesn’t have to make things perfect to be worthwhile.

Some people only see the tragedies that still occur, and are blind to the ones we’ve managed to avoid.

In spite of our differences, we stand side by side in our support for the MSIC.  We deplore the human waste that addiction brings and the double standards that prompts the expenditure of mind boggling amounts on the ‘war’ on drugs.  To spend in excess of $100K pa to keep someone in jail is a ludicrous policy for people who need help with mental illness and problems of addiction.

Neither of us have any political alliance with Kristina Kenneally, but we share an admiration of her.  Ms Kenneally has achieved more than a mini-bus load of prior Premiers in the matter of humane drugs policy.

Although the electorate is in no mood to hear it, this Premier has exercised extraordinary leadership, achieving results in areas that have been the cause of paralysis in the labour party for many years.  In the face of floods and the hurricane in Queensland, the Premier there was suddenly seen for her strength of leadership.

Ms Kenneally is made of the same stuff; leading what everyone says in a lost cause against all odds with dignity, courage and integrity.

We hope a Liberal Government will not take to these initiatives with a wrecking bar and call it ‘leadership’.

Interviewed yesterday on the Kyle and Jackie O show (which probably says it all),  Peter Madden ruined my otherwise delightful Wednesday morning with narrow-minded BS.

His short-sighted view on the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade made me want to throw my shoe at his head.

Let me start with a direct quote from his press release issued yesterday, entitled ‘From the Streets to the Stadium’. (I must point out that the spelling and grammatical errors bothered me even more than his point-of-view, so I have corrected throughout).

“The Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is live pornography,” said Madden.

“It is a brash display of a lifestyle and corrupt social morals that many Australians do not agree with.”

Let me stop you right there.

A brash display of lifestyle and corrupt social morals? Since when is a celebration of freedom and life that spews glitter and rainbows a brash display of moral corruption? I’ve been to many Mardi Gras parades in my time, the first of which when I was fifteen and with my family, and I have never felt uncomfortable or disgusted. I’ve never seen “live pornography” displayed, or blatant drug abuse in the streets or at parties. I know it goes on, but it goes on everywhere.

Madden goes on to say “at the same time, there is evidence that indicates that more drugs are sold and distributed on Mardi Gras night than any other night of the year.”

Have you partied in the Cross on a Friday or Saturday night? Have you been to a NYE celebration in the Rocks? Have you been to a music festival? Just because there aren’t as many arrests, or drug-related hospital admissions, doesn’t mean it’s not going on. Trust me.

He says that Mardi Gras is “a night on which Hyde Park is strewn with bodies of drunken teenagers, when there is violence in the streets”. Manly Corso, anyone? The Mean Fiddler?

He then admitted on radio this morning he hadn’t attended many, or was it just the one, parade – so his entire perception of the event is based on one night at Hyde Park where he saw an intoxicated young girl dressed in a French Maid outfit, and hearsay.

This morning he also said that it was clear “our society had become sex-crazy; you can hear people sing about it in songs all over the radio”.

Mate. Our society has not *become* sex-crazy, it always has been. It’s just now we have more mediums and freedom of speech to express it.

Sex sells. You should know that, you fueled your own sex addiction by paying for prostitutes before becoming a Christian Pastor. I won’t reference every decade in history, but blatant prostitution has been around forever. They just didn’t have Snoop Dogg and Mickey Avalon to sing songs about it in the 16th Century.

When somebody goes on record to air their opinions on homosexuality publicly, and says that they are “not a pious bigot”, and “loves homosexual people as I love all people,” do not then put the word “the” in front of the word “gays”. Anybody who refers to a minority sector of our community as “the gays” clearly has a problem with it, which I would suggest spans far greater than his idea to cage in the gay and lesbian community.

He continues, “We don’t tolerate criminals, peadophiles or drug dealers. You can’t just tolerate all kinds of activity in society. We need boundaries in order to protect our young people. We are the guardians of the next generation – we must do everything we can to give them a wholesome, balanced start to life.”

Is Madden suggesting that homosexuals should be placed in the same category as criminals, pedophiles and drug dealers? He can’t even spell ‘pedophiles’. Is he suggesting that same sex couples and individuals can’t provide adequate guardianship to the ‘next generation’?

Yes, he is.

In summation, Peter Madden wants to see “the Mardi Gras relocated to a stadium, where they can have THEIR parade and floats away from OUR streets.” He adds that it would greatly reduce services currently required to contain the “problems” at the Mardi Gras, and hence the cost to the taxpayer.

OUR streets?

You mean, heterosexual people’s streets, Peter? I

do believe that OUR streets also belong to homosexuals. And, even though homosexuals aren’t entitled to marriage, reduced health care premiums and tax breaks, they DO pay tax. They are just as entitled to use the streets of Sydney as any other taxpaying citizen.

Finally, Madden says “In short, it is anarchy right here in the centre of our city, and the Mardi Gras organisers and militant homosexual lobby would have us believe that this behaviour is acceptable.”

It is acceptable, whether you like it or not. It’s part of life. It’s here for life. So instead of jumping on your soap box and pissing everybody off, why don’t you preach acceptance.

Isn’t that the Christian way?

The last thing Australia needs is more blind faith experienced with the ‘special friendship’ between John Howard and George W. Bush (we can see how special it is when reading both men’s memoirs, Howard devotes and entire chapter to Bush, while Bush mentions good ol’ Johnny 3 times in passing. One would tend to argue the ex-Prime Minister’s sense of self-worth on the world stage is a little inflated).

The recent WikiLeaks cables quoting conversations with Washington about Australia and its leaders does not necessarily point to a break in the relationship, but rather proves Australia’s closeness with the United States.

The comments made by US diplomatic officials may surprise someone who has been living under a rock for the past year. In fact even before Rudd’s disposition as Prime Minister The Monthly ran an article describing the ALP leader as childish, arrogant and controlling. Anyone who follows politics should not be shocked by these ‘revelations’. People must take these cables with a grain of salt, these behind doors conversations are how people talk to each other, it’s nice to know some of our politicians that seem to be lacking in personality actually have some character, Rudd’s reference to be prepared to use force against China shows some actual spine rather than the do nothing politics that became characterised with his leadership.

There is really no need to push Australia into closer ties with the US, we are so deeply entwined with America that no mater how strong our ties with China, we will always be inclined to prefer the US. The insecurity seems to come from this fear that Australia will somehow ‘pick’ China, like a game of soccer at school, choosing one over the other. This is simply not the case. While Clinton speaks against an “us and them” mentality, if Australia heads down the path of being America’s military ally in South-East Asia, Australia effectively picks a side.

Kevin Rudd’s comments on China come as no surprise. The man as Prime Minister saw the importance of China as an emerging power and as a leader in a capitalist world and wanted to integrate a powerful economic ally into the Western world. The comments made by Rudd to Clinton about being prepared to use force against China should everything go wrong – should come as no surprise either. It is perfectly feasible that China will not want to integrate with the Western world, why should it? Their values, culture and heritage are completely different to ours.

A Lowy institute survey showed almost half of Australia believes China will become a military threat in the next 20 years. China’s lack of transparency  is the underlying cause for this paranoia. But the more likely threat is likely to come from cyberspace. China’s lack of basic freedoms, spying on activists internationally and hacking email accounts become ever more dangerous in an increasingly computerised world, not to mention these are only the attacks we know about.

But China seems at this point seems too paranoid to be a real military threat. The US’ increasingly aggressive attitude towards to communist state will more than likely keep China in check (as well as keeping it paranoid). If we look back to the 1990s and Bill Clinton’s response to Chinese aggression in the Taiwan straights, it almost led to war. If China does move south, the United States would be the first country in line to stop them.

Australia does have many things in common with the US. As Clinton said (I was always taught to use said unless absolutely necessary): “I think that the core values of the Australian people, the quality of life, the standard of living, the aspirations that Australians feel are very much in line with the way Americans think and act. So our relationship is essential to both of us.” But Clinton’s call to push the US ahead of an unreliable China seems to be completely against our country’s interest.

For all the business and economic partnerships we have with China, chances are we won’t ever be waiting for the next block-bluster Chinese movie, we are, whether we like it or not, a part of America’s Western world. This is what keeps us intertwined with the US, commonality. Australia will never share this with China in the current cultural and political climate; (at least not until China cleans up its human rights record). Quite simply our relationship is strictly business.

America will never abandon Australia. It remains too valuable to its interests in the region. But just as New Zealand stood up against perceived American aggression in the region in the 1980s – so can we. Australia can be partners with both China and the US without being perceived as an American satellite.

I’ve been getting quite a lot of questions from readers about whether I think he really raped those women, and how that effects WikiLeaks.

I’d like to say that it just might be possible for WikiLeaks to be doing a good thing in regards to the public interest, and for Julian Assange to still be an asshole.

The MSM and by extension the public have been polarising the issue in such a way as to have us believe that if Assange really did commit “surprise sex”, assault, or the various other sexual misconduct charges that have been laid against him – then WikiLeaks should cease to exist. Or alternatively, if he is innocent, then WikiLeaks remains to be a good thing.

I’m here to tell you: the two are not mutually exclusive.

Guess what? Influential people are seldom morally righteous: Bill Clinton was impeached for his affair with Monika Lewinsky – but he also signed the Brady Bill imposing a five day waiting period on handguns, developed a health care reform plan (which eventually failed), and pushed his administration on to the internet issuing Executive Order 13011 – requiring the all federal agencies to go online so that the public has easier access to information. Bob Crane used to secretly film himself with prostitutes and landed up cut into tiny little pieces for it – but nobody stopped watching Hogan’s Heroes (because making fun of Nazis is hilarious!).  Mozart was a drunk, he also composed over 600 concertos, symphonies and operas. JFK was a philandering drug addict, who just so happened to solve the Cuban Missile Crisis. George Washington had slaves, but he also led America to victory in the American Revolution, and Thomas Edison is reportedly a plagiarist but will still be remembered as the inventor of revolutionary devices such as the motion picture camera and the light bulb. Can we pause to consider for a moment that Assange might well be a sexual deviant that just so happens to be working towards the common good by leaking state secrets and ensuring government transparency?

To say that Assange is a bit of a dick would be an understatement. A self-declared “combatant”, it is clear there is more to his role in WikiLeaks than working for the public interest:  “I’m a combative person”, he told an interviewer recently. “I enjoy crushing bastards… It’s very personally deeply satisfying to me.”

When Assange was contacted by human rights groups, worried that the Afghanistan cables would identify and risk the lives of aid workers, Assange replied:

“I’m very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal.”

And in The Guardian’s Q&A this week, in reply to a rather long-winded question from a “former British diplomat” – “why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function?”,  Assange replied:

“If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.”

In regards to the charges – there are four, but very little is known about them. There are conflicting reports bouncing around the British press at the moment, claiming that Assange   tried to take advantage of one of the women while she was sleeping, and that he forced the other’s legs apart in order to have unprotected sex with her. Equally, there are also a lot of conflicting reports in the media questioning the credibility of the claimants. One is alleged to have connections to the CIA, then there’s the matter of a troublesome blog post about how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends. Despite all of this – the truth of these allegations are not known. The only thing I will say is that it is too soon, and we do not have enough information to be drawing any conclusions. The point is – guilty or not – it doesn’t matter. These charges have nothing to do with WikiLeaks, and should not be used  conveniently to condemn the organisation which consists of five paid employees and over 800 volunteers. As if the persona of one man is enough to tarnish an entire organisation.

News With Nipples also pointed out the hypocrisy regarding the way Assange’s arrest has been treated in the press, compared to another admitted sexual offender – Roman Polanski:

“It’s not surprising that the sexual assault charges against Assange have made headlines around the world, in a way that those against, say, Roman Polanski didn’t. I don’t recall politicians calling for Polanski’s assassination for drugging and raping a child and then spending the next 33 years avoiding countries where he might get caught. Just to be clear: one is a high-profile spokesman for a whistleblower website who has been accused of sexually assaulting two adults. The other is an award-winning film director who admitted drugging and anally raping a child. So why was one just a news brief in the world section and the other The Most Important Story Of The Week?”

Roman Polanksi actually admitted to the rape – (so I’m not sure why so many people rushed to his defence) – yet after thirty years, there has been no conviction. We haven’t yet heard all the evidence regarding the Assange charges, but the world is ready to condemn him.

We have no idea of knowing whether these charges are real, or whether there is enough evidence to convict Assange. Let’s try and remember however, – a guilty charge doesn’t mean he is guilty, likewise a not-guilty charge doesn’t mean he’s not guilty – it simply means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. If Assange is guilty – then he deserves to go to jail. But regardless, neither verdict should negate  the benefits WikiLeaks has provided by trying to ensure a more open and transparent society.

For the first time in years the cynicism has lifted, and once again interest in global political affairs has peaked. We have seen a global defiance of national defence organisations around the world, and have witnessed the spectacular failure of governments to stem the tide of classified information being made publicly available to anyone with an internet connection.

As I write this, over 500 mirror websites have been set up by internet users in response to the attempts of governments and companies to bring down the site. (You can access a comprehensive list of all the mirror sites here).

Wikileaks only grows stronger with every threat that has been made to the website, and to the life and livelihood of Julian Assange.

^Julian Assange on why the world needs Wikileaks.

Let’s take a look at all the attempts that have been made to bring down Wikileaks thus far:

- Amazon booted Wikileaks off its servers after Joe Lieberman pled for organisations to withdraw their support for the group.

- In an attempt to cripple Wikileaks financially, Paypal blocked financial transactions to the site so that users could no longer donate money directly to the website.

- A short time later software company, Tableau, removed graphs which categorised the cables by country and classification which were being hosted on their servers (ironically the data contained within the tableau software could only be accessed by PC users – so the loss only effected 50% of the internet community).

- On Friday the company which hosted wikileaks.org took the group offline.

- The French industry minister Eric Besson is examining ways of bannning Wikileaks in France. The company hosting the site, OHV, referred the matters to the courts. There has been no verdict thus far (but it didn’t stop the site mysteriously going offline again). The site was quickly rerouted through another Swedish server by the Swedish Pirate Party, and Wikileaks was back online again in a matter of hours.

- Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested in Britain last night on charges of rape, molestation, sexual harrassment and “surprise sex” – (there’s an obscure Swedish law which provides Swedish citizens with legal recourse if their sexual partners do not use sexual protection without their consent). The circumstances relating to the charges are dubious at best. It is important to note that Assange’s lawyer says Assange was never read the charges, and this is a clear violation of his rights. I’m not sure there is enough evidence to convict Assange, moreover, what country has the jurisdiction to charge Assange for a crime which does not exist outside of Sweden?

- It has also been discovered that twitter is allegedly censoring the discussion of Wikileaks by excluding the term #Wikileaks from its trending topics, preventing people from knowing the true scope of discussion about Wikileaks unless they’re seeking it out independently  – although Matt Graves, the Communications Director of twitter, denies this. Bubbloy has published a very comprehensive and detailed analysis of the number of times the term #Wikileaks has been used on twitter, and the number of tweets relating to Wikileaks and found that the incidences by far exceeded any of the trending topics that were on twitter at the time the article was written. It’s exclusion from twitter trends is suspicious at best. I recommend you read the article in full for a more detailed analysis than I can include here.

- MasterCard and Visa have withdrawn their financial support of Wikileaks – however their cards may still be used to donate to racist organisations such as the Klu Klux Klan – an atrocious irony.

- Swiss Bank have used a legal loophole to freeze Wikileaks bank accounts. Apparently Assange used Geneva as a fake country of origin in his application and this excuse was enough to justify closing the account.

The attempts to bring down Wikileaks have only strengthened the organisations resolve (and the resolve of the interwebs) to keep the site online, and to keep the flow of confidential information open. Twitter users started surfacing such as “WikiAdvocate” and others like it – encouraging users to set up mirror sites in order to keep Wikileaks online.

The tally count as it stands now (according to the tally site Leaky Links) is 1097 mirrors. 142 of them are experiencing Denial of Service (DNS) attacks, 821 are online and 128 are up-to-date with 960 cables. (Thank you to @erinwye for providing me with this information).

The world will watch with interest the events which follow Assange’s arrest. It is understood that his legal council plan to resist extradition charges for fear he will be handed over to the Americans who are considering prosecution after it was reported that NATO has drawn up secret plans to defend the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and Poland against any Russian threat. A Wikileaks spokesperson has already stated that they will continue to leak cables despite Assange’s arrest.

The world should take note. Though they have not yet released the “insurance cable” containing the remaining unpublished cables, (which is rumored to include cables relating to Guantanamo Bay), Wikileaks have already sent the encrypted file to people all over the world. A 256 digit code is required to decode the cables.

Arresting or assasinating Julian Assange will only make him a martyr for his cause. Neither arrests, nor shutting down Wikileaks will cease the flow of classified information around the web. If Wikileaks is eventually shut down, if Assange is convicted or killed,  hundreds of other websites and people will rise to take its place.  All journalists and anyone who believes in freedom of the press and freedom of information should be supporting Assange by creating more mirror sites for Wikileaks. Never again should the state withhold secrets that relate to the public interest. It is clear now that we cannot trust governments to act in our interest. Only through a free press, organisations that are prepared to risk closure and people who are willing to risk death and prosecution can information truly be free.

To quote the US High Court ruling on the Pentagon Papers “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”.

We cannot stem the tide. We should not be resisting the awesome power of the interwebs. It is the only guarantor of democracy.

Follow the breaking news on the Assange arrest as it happens at Social Scapegoat.

7.39 am – BoingBoing is reporting that the New York Times may be under investigation for espionage (aka doing their job).

6.45 Assange’s lawyer confirms Assange is being held in London’s Wandsworth prison, Britain’s largest and arguably ugliest prison which hold 1600 inmates.

6.58 am The Swedish prosecution authority website is said to be under attack by a group that is targetting all anti-Wikileaks companies, organisations and websites.

6.30 Philip Crowley of the US State Department announces that the US will host Unesco’s World Press Freedom Day. An irony not lost on anyone.

Read an excerpt  from the press release:

The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.” - Posted on The Guardian.

6.05 am The Swiss Pirate Party offers Assange asylum according to The Guardian’s Richard Adams & Josh Halliday:

“The Swiss Pirate party has just sent an open letter to the country’s federal council urging it to allow Julian Assange asylum.

“What has happened in the US – political pressure leading to the suppression of free speech by private companies like PayPal, Amazon, EveryDNS and Tableau – should not be allowed to happen in Switzerland,” the letter warns, adding: “For all these reasons a consistent and uncompromising digital policy is needed.”

WikiLeaks.ch, currently the primary domain name for the whistleblowers’ site, was registered by the Swiss Pirate party in June, before becoming WikiLeaks’ main access point last week after being dropped by its DNS host. The party referred 4,000 people a second to WikiLeaks through WikiLeaks.ch on Sunday, it has told the Guardian.

“We urge you to counter the interventions by the US and their ambassador in Switzerland. On the grounds of digital politics, the question of asylum for Julian Assange should be examined,” the letter goes on.”

5.20  am When asked about Visa and MasterCard withdrawing their support of Wikileaks, Mark Stephens replies

“I am advised that WikiLeaks can continue to exist. They have many thousands of journalists in a virtual journalistic community around the world, and they will continue. We are at only cable 301 today. We will see the rest of those 250,000 cables coming out so that full information is available.“

5.15 am – A very interesting point from The Guardian’s technology reporter, Charles Arthur who “points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are “white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God.”"

5.00 am – Assange is driven away from court to cries of “we love you” from protesters, according to The Guardian’s Sam Jones.

4.54 am – Outside court, Stephens says:

“WikiLeaks will continue. WikiLeaks is many thousands of journalists around the world. A renewed bail application will be made.

We have heard the judge today say that he wishes to see the evidence himself. He was impressed by the fact that a number of people were prepared to stand up on behalf of Mr Assange. In those circumstances I think we will see another bail application.

They [those offering surety] were but the tip of the iceberg. This is going to go viral. Many people believe Mr Assange to be innocent, myself included. Many people believe that this prosecution is politically motivated.

I’m sure that the British judicial system is robust enough not to be interfered with by politicians and that are judges are impartial and fair. I hope I can say the same about Swedish prosecutors in the future.”

4.45 am More details on the charges from the Press Association and The Guardian:

“Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations. She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange “deliberately molested” Miss A on 18 August “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”.

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.”

4.42 am Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens said “we are in the rather exotic position of not seeing any of the evidence against him.”

“This is going to go viral”, he said, also stating that many people believe the charges are trumped up and political.

“Assange could have been safely released today, Stephens told reporters. These allegations are very thin indeed, he said. He confirmed that further bail applications will be made.

Stephens claimed that Assange will be vindicated.

He added that the release of the US embassy cables would continue.”  – The Guardian

4.32 am  The Guardian reports:  “This case is not about WikiLeaks,” district judge Howard Riddle told the court.

Riddle refused bail on the grounds there was a risk Assange would fail to surrender. He rejected the prosecution claim that bail should be rejected on the grounds of Assange’s safety.

Of six people a the court to offer surety, John Pilger, Ken Loach, and Jemima Khan all offered at least 20 000 pounds.  An anonymous individual offered surety of £60,000.

When requested to supply an address Assange replied “PO Box 4080″. When the question was asked again, he said: “Do you want it for correspondence or for some other reason?” He later gave an Australian address.

4.04 am – Bail was denied and Assange is to be remanded in custody until the 14th of December.

3.51 am The two female claimants in the case said that a condom was a prerequisite for sexual intercourse, the court heard – reported by legal affairs commentator Joshua Rozenberg who was in court – The Guardian is reporting.

Rozenberg also told Sky News that the charges were not read out to Assange. Rozenberg reported that in one case Assange allegedly had sex with a woman who was sleeping, the other was coerced, allegedly.

“Assange’s lawyers made clear that the case would not finish today, Rozenberg said” – The Guardian.

The prosecution, representing the Swedish authorities, objected to bail on two grounds: that Assange failed to surrender and that he should stay in custody for his own protection, Rozenberg reported.

3.35 am Channel 4 reports that Assange requested the assistance of the Australian High Commission and that some members of the commission were allegedly inside the court with Assange.

3.28 am Assange says he will fight extradition to Sweden, according to the AAP and The Guardian.

3.08 am Upon hearing of Assange’s arrest, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates smirked and said “I hadn’t heard that but that sounds like good news to me”.

2.30am More financial problems plague Wikieaks. The Guardian reports that Visa has suspended all payments to Wikileaks “pending further investigation”. MasterCard also pulls out saying they are “taking action to ensure that Wikileaks can no longer accept MasterCard- branded products”.

2.00 am We are informed by Channel 4 news in Britain that Assange is about to enter court. Channel 4 news advises via twitter that recording devices were requested to be turned off:

1.15 am The Guardian reports tDemocratic chair of the US Senate’s intelligence committee, Dianne Feinstein, said Assange “should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage”.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, she says:

“The law Mr Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorised person to possess or transmit “information relating to the national defence which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation”.

The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the US government. Importantly, the courts have held that “information relating to the national defence” applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.”

12.31 am – Assange’s op-ed piece is published in full at The Australian

“The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts: the US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US officials in Jordan and Bahrain want [sic] Iran’s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

Britain’s Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”.

Sweden is a covert member of Nato and US intelligence-sharing is kept from parliament.

The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantánamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian president only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US supreme court said “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”. The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.”

11.49 – I’m wrapping up for the night folks. I’m sleep deprived. Damn Australia on the other side of the world and stupid timezones. Will update in the morning when we know more. Night folks.

11.43 pm – Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, is saying that Assange has still not been told of the allegations he is being charged with in a warrent written in a language he understands – which is English, (apparently the warrant is in Swedish) and says this is a clear violation of his civil and human rights.

11.41 – While there are reports Wikileaks has no plans to release the insurance cable, it has apparently sent it supporters all over the world and can only be accessed using a 256 digit long code. More at The Guardian.

11.34 pm – CapitalFM is reporting that a major Wikileaks donor is now under pressure in Germany after failing to file a return on time. The Wau Holland who reportedly donated 750 000 Euros to Wikileaks and has been sent a second notice of to file their 2009 tax accounts. The tax authorities are denying this has anything to do with Wikileaks.

11.30 pm Techdirt is reporting that Swiss Bank has discovered a loophole by which to freeze Wikileak’s bank account. Apparently Assange falsely listed Geneva as his place of residence (he should have just written ‘planet earth’) and are using this as a justification for freezing the account. You can read about it here.

11.26pm The Guardian is reporting that Wikileaks have no plans to publish an insurance encryption code that will release the remaining, unpublished classified cables. Assange told the Guardian last Friday that the code to the encryption would be released if “something happens to us“.

11.15pm Wikileak is coordinating a protest of the arrest of Julian Assange at Westminster Court. Protesters are due to meet outside the Westminster Court at 13.30pm (local time) in London. You can find more information about the protests here. Twitter updates are also available at @Wikileaks.

11.13 One of the claimants is adamantly denying the charges are trumped up, The Guardian is reporting. “The charges against Assange are of course not orchestrated by the Pentagon,” the claimant said. Assange is strenuously denying all charges.

11.11 – The New York Times is  reporting on how the US have been going after Assange over the separate issue of the leaked cables.

“Justice department prosecutors have been struggling to find a way to indict Assange since July, when WikiLeaks made public documents on the war in Afghanistan. But while it is clearly illegal for a government official with a security clearance to give a classified document to WikiLeaks, it is far from clear that it is illegal for the organisation to make it public.

The Justice department has considered trying to indict Assange under the Espionage Act, which has never been successfully used to prosecute a third-party recipient of a leak. Some lawmakers have suggested accusing WikiLeaks of receiving stolen government property, but experts said Monday that would also pose difficulties.” - The Guardian.

11.10 – If you haven’t already, do read Clay Shirky’s Wikileaks piece.

“The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us: “You went after WikiLeaks’ domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant and all targeting overseas entities, simply because you decided you don’t like the site. If that’s the way governments get to behave, we can live with that.”

11.09 – The Guardian reports comments made by Hilary Clinton earlier this year are coming back to bite her in the proverbial:

“On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognise that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the first amendment to the constitution [guaranteeing freedom of speech] are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.”

11.08 Court staff confirm Assange will likely not appear until 2pm. (Local time).

10.56 – Updates have come to a grinding halt. We will post information overnight as it happens, but it seems “that’s all folks”. For now. Do stay tuned. Please leave us your thoughts on the comment section. We will reply.

10.47 – We highly recommend you read the open letter to Julia Gillard relating to Julian Assange. It already has 3399 comments. If you are going to post a comment on The Drum, we kindly ask you re-post them here, or post similar ones.

10.45 pm – Information is slowing now. We await more details of the arrest and actions taken. In the meantime, what do you think about the arrest / Wikileaks in general? Should he be arrested? Should Wikileaks be taken down? Leave us your thoughts in the comment section.

10.24 – The #Wikileaks hashtag is going bezerk on twitter – despite this, #Wikileaks it is not a trending topic. Further proof it is being excluded from trending topics. (Twitter spokespeople have previously denied this claim). For a very detailed analysis of the Wikileaks trends, the incidences of the hashtag on twitter – refuting any denials of censorship click here. However, Julian Assange and Scotland Yard are current trending topics.

10.13 pm BBC World reported that a WikiLeaks spokesperson says Julian Assange´s arrest is an attack on media freedom but won’t stop group from continuing to release cables.

10.11 – The number of published cables stands at 913 as of 4.30pm this afternoon, news.com.au reported.

10.10pm On an ABC24 repeat – Gillard says Wikileaks leaking of information is an illegal act. Said Wikileaks would not exist if an illegal act had not been committed. Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis criticized  Ms Gillard for her “clumsy” language. “As far as I can see he hasn’t broken any Australian law,” Senator Brandis told Sky News. – news.com.au

10.03 – ABC Correspondent says it’s unlikely the police will have enough evidence to hold Assange.

10.01 pm Assange has written an Op-Ed piece for The Australian. You can read it here. *But open it in a new window, will you?

9.58 pm Despite Assange’s arrest Wikileaks continues to leak state secrets. According to MSNB, cables have revealed that NATO has drawn up secret plans to defend the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and Poland against any Russian threat. The revelations have allegedly prompted the US to consider prosecuting Assange.

9.57 pm – SBS is reporting other developments:
“  – Hong Kong’s security chief denied that the city was at serious risk of being attacked by Al-Qaeda during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, as leaked US diplomatic cables warned, citing Chinese intelligence sources.

- The militant group Hezbollah has acquired an arsenal of some 50,000 rockets and missiles, raising fears of an enlarged conflict with Israel, cables printed the New York Times showed.

- The United States suspected a Saudi Arabian ambassador to the Philippines of potential involvement in funding terrorists, another cable released by WikiLeaks showed.”

9.55 pm – The ABC is reporting that Assange allegedly turned himself in at 9.30am (local time) in London.

9.54 Statement from the London Metropolitan Police – courtesy of the Guardian:

”
10.30am: Here’s a statement from Metropolitan Police:

Officers from the Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit have this morning arrested Julian Assange on behalf of the Swedish authorities on suspicion of rape.

Julian Assange, 39, was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant by appointment at a London police station at 9.30am.

He is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010.

Assange is due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court today.

Sam Jones is on his way to the court.”

9.46 Sky News reports Julian Assange’s solicitor Mark Stephens says his arrest is a “political stunt” and says Assange wants to find out the allegations he faces so he can clear his name.  Stephens reportedly told Sky New’s Rhiannon Mills that they will resist any attempts of extradition “mainly on the grounds that he may be handed over to the Americans”.

9.41 pm (Aus time) Philip Williams says there are suspicions Assange’s arrest is a a political tactic on ABC News 24. Swedes deny it is political, stating seriousness of the charge. Wikileaks spokesperson has said they will continue to leaks despite Assange’s arrest.

9.32 pm The Guardian report British police confirm Assange has been arrested. He is due to appear in Westminster Court later today.

9.55 pm The Guardian reports Operation Payback threaten to go after paypal after they shut down the website of the Swiss bank PostFinance, Raw Story claims.

On its Twitter account the group said: PAYPAL.COM IS DOWN! AND YES WE ARE FIRING NOW!!! KEEP FIRING!

Democracy as we know it in modern society was actually the product of capitalism’s struggle against Monarchy. Initially capitalists and entrepreneurs throughout Europe increasingly clashed with the ruling royalty. Rather than an uprising of the urban and peasant populations, it was seen as a means in which capitalism could function better, without blockage from Monarchs. The concept initially was not initially open for mass inclusion. It seems democracy, was the idea of capitalists and elites, forged to further their own endeavours.

With the evolution of democracy across the world, the concept began to encompass a more pluralistic feel. Democracy as we know it, evolved from a simply means for capitalists to further investment into an all including means of government where every citizen has the right to participation.

As democracy has evolved into the 21st century its separation from capitalism has become clear. No longer can countries where human rights exist and the rule of law remains somewhat strong be exploited for minimal money and almost inhuman working conditions. So capitalists have evolved to exploit the weak by lining the pockets of the ruling elites in the third world.

A great example of this is in Burma, where the ruling military Junta maintains a stranglehold over the poor minority. Burma has recently signed a contract to deliver gas to South Korean company, Daewoo. Royalties are estimated to be around US$40 billion. Burma’s natural gas supplies allow the ruling Junta to maintain fiscal control over the country as henceforth line the pockets of those individuals and institutions that are essential for control over the masses. But can increasing greed and centralisation of power be maintained?

The importance of these points is to be able to look at democracy in context. If we take this concept of democracy being linked to elites and military figures and apply it to modern day Burma, we can find an interesting link. The rumour mill has been spewing when it comes to the military Junta in Burma. As military law stands in Burma, officials must retire from the military once they reach the age of 60. The current leading generals Than Shwe and Maung Aye, 77 and 73 respectively, have obviously far outlived this rule.

Before the most recent ‘elections’ (the term election is used very loosely) many military officials that occupied high offices of government, including the Prime Minister, were forced out of the military. Obviously dissent is not publicly vocalised, due to fears of violence, it is rumoured that many of these forcibly retired officials are unhappy with their ejection from the military, yet the Shwe and Aye have both kept their positions. While these retired generals still occupy many government positions, their dissatisfaction with leaving the military, which they have been part of since they were teenagers, could be assumed.

This increasingly centralised rule could possibly lead to the ruling Junta’s downfall. There are many parallels in Burma to Suharto’s authoritarian rule in Indonesia. Originally a military coup, General Suharto was able to rule for close to 35 years almost unchallenged due to his close ties with the military and their occupation of government and business offices. While the military was happy, Suharto’s rule was untouchable. It was not until the military saw an increasingly centralised rule around Suharto has his family that during the Asian economic crisis, turned against him.

The question remains, is this Burma’s time for democracy? With the release of iconic pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi just last weekend, one could be inclined to say this is a major step forward in Burma’s political struggle. Sun Kyi has made very clear she understands the importance of the military in moving Burma forward.

“I don’t want to see the military falling. I want to see the military rising to dignified heights of professionalism and true patriotism,” said Sun Kyi in an interview with the BBC.

Is there enough dissatisfaction within the ruling Junta itself to turn against its current leadership and opt for a new government? Or will the ruling officials keep control as they have done for so long? Both seem problematic, since if the military turn to Suu Kyi, they risk their own power and status in Burmese life as democracy will promote participation and separation of powers.

Out of all this a controversial question arises. Has democracy and development in the West destroyed any possibility for democratisation and development for the rest of the world?

If you answered yes to some of these questions you may not be aware but Ted Baillieu has (some say surprisingly) won the recent Victorian Election ousting Former Premier John Brumby and the Labor party. Brumby suffered a large 6.6 swing against him allowing Baillieu (and his Nationals friends) to get to the magical Forty-Five seats needed to form Government, leaving Brumby with a measly Forty-One seats.

So what gives? What did the Labor Government do that was so bad Victoria needed to elect the Lib/Nat Coalition?
From a South Australian viewpoint… nothing. Victoria is really “the place to be”, I know that far more of my fellow South Australians would rather travel to Melbourne than Adelaide, and would probably much rather have Brumby than Mike Rann right now. In fact Brumby and the Labor Government has had many broad successes, from enacting a Human Rights act to weathering the GFC remarkably well (without depending on mining too).

So yes, I am one very confused South Australian right now.

Of course it’s not exactly hard to find out why people didn’t want to vote Labor, just travel through the comments on any Age or Herald Sun article that has anything remotely to do with Politics and you’ll often encounter people complaining about transport, planning, and perhaps more commonly the fact Brumby is perceived as arrogant. Some of the commentators are simply blaming the ‘it’s time factor’ which is probably a fair point given that Labor has been in power more often than not.

Now not being a Victorian and having not actually met Brumby I can’t really speak to the truthfulness of these complaints, and the it’s time factor certainly didn’t kick Mike Rann out over here (though no doubt some are now wishing it had) but I think it should be noted that (if my understanding is correct) it was the Melbourne areas that inflicted the most hurt on Brumby, not the  Regional areas.

So what now for the bested Labor party? Well Brumby has taken the first step and has stepped down as leader of the Victorian Labor Party. Whether he chose or was forced, while fun to speculate about, is immaterial. The important thing is he has stepped down, allowing the party to begin the (possibly messy) process of generational change. Rising stars will now have the opportunity to rise and those who are fading will be able to leave the spotlight and assume different roles within the party. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a very different looking Labor Party at the next election.

The other interesting aspect of the Election is that the Greens barely lifted their vote, only managing a 0.4% swing, which some people are a little shocked by given the massive swing The Greens received during the Federal Campaign. Personally I’ve always seen the Green vote as a measure of Labor’s progressiveness; and it seems Vic Labor was rather progressive which probably is why the vote has not increased as much as some would have expected (or perhaps hoped). Obviously the Greens are going to be doing a little navel gazing over this.

So what’s next for Victoria? Will it remain “the place to be” (or not to be) under Ted? Who is going to take over the Labor leadership? Will they be competent? Likeable? Male? Female? Young? Old?

I can honestly say I do not have the answer to any these questions, but I can say I’m looking forward to finally getting South Australian news again.

The Australian Christian Lobby doesn’t get to run a monopoly on ethics.