Saving Julian Assange

Snowden is being charged under the U.S. Espionage Act for leaking information to the media about the NSA's worldwide surveillance and data-gathering networks.

The 30-year-old former NSA [National Security Agency] contractor has said he did what he believes was right in going public with the information in order to "correct this wrongdoing." He has said the citizens under surveillance world is not one in which he wishes to live. The US has expressed its displeasure to Ecuador and Russia regarding the provision of asylum to Assange and Snowden. Declaring chillingly ironically, regarding Snowden, we in the US will not torture or kill him so he is not eligible for asylum. Russia has been accused of human rights violations by the US and may be secretly savouring the opportunity for this role reversal, by granting protection to Snowden.

However does it matter that the Assange party seems to be a single or narrow issue party, hovering around the leaders agenda.? Couldn't this be said of others? For example the Australian Smokers Rights Party, which is standing up for disgruntled smokers who among other things are objecting to being forced to endure plain packaging of cigarettes!

In contrast, Julian Assange is committed to freedom of speech and the right of citizen's to know what is being done in our name. In 2010 I wrote that I considered Assange satisfied the criterion of hero [as do Manning and Snowden.]

In Greek mythology a hero is one who, despite danger and in a position of relative weakness, displays courage and the will for self sacrifice for some greater good. In this respect Assange could be seen as a hero, even if his character were shown to be flawed,

However his bid for the Senate is not in my view heroic; but born more of desperation to survive. Ironically for Assange, his political party has an agenda that has not been openly enunciated.

Considering the fate afforded to Bradley Manning, the pursuit of Snowden and the threats of hunting Assange down like a terrorist made to Assange by US members of Congress; Assange is David pursued by a relentless Goliath. It is understandable that he would want to stay in the, albeit limited, protection of the public eye.

However this is not an appropriate platform on which to base a tilt at a Parliamentary presence. It does Assange and his coterie of presumably, well intentioned candidates a disservice.

Most people would consider Palmer and Assange to be as far apart as the North and South Poles. The Clive Palmer United Party, whose leader's own agenda stands out like dogs balls, can be seen as the diametric opposite of Julian Assange. Dripping with self aggrandisement, his excesses might be the very stuff WikiLeakes might seek to expose.

And yet Palmer and Assange share a common goal; putting their own personally driven agenda, narcissistically at the helm of their newly discovered political aspirations. In that way their parties becomes a shop front only.

Narcissism and Political power are an all to common if dangerous and unpalatable combination.

Having been a staunch supporter of  human rights for Julian Assange, I am now left wondering. How can I  reconcile my view of the old Assange with his newly created inchoate political persona and his  opportunistic attempt to  become a Victorian Senator? Assange therefore may get my sympathy vote, but he and his party will not get my political vote.

Perhaps the final irony for Assange would lie  in the conflict of interest between being head of Wikileakes the exposer of secrets, and joining the keepers of secrets and parliamentary spin as an elected Senator.