spark up! supports
wikileaks' right to freedom of expression, on principle - and not least because it has revealed the extent of:
a) united states' interference in the democratic process in nigeria (on behalf of royal dutch shell plc)
b) united states' acquiescence regarding war-crimes committed by the ugandan military
c) united states' illicit air-strikes against alleged al qaeda targets in yemen which resulted in large numbers of civilian casulaties
d) united states' and british war-crimes in iraq
e) united states' and british war-crimes in afghanistan
moreover, if
our governments exercize the right to control, tax, and snoop on
us, as private citizens, it follows that
we, as individuals, have every right to obtain knowledge of actions taken by
our states in
our name. after all...it's not as if we can trust them, is it?
however...in the (rape) case of julian assange
versus the state of sweden, we must be clear that the defendant and his accusers are all acting as
individuals, and that this is a
personal matter - yet it appears that the defining lines between the
state and the
individual have become unhealthily blurred.
i am convinced that the defence team for mr assange (the founder of
wikileaks) has made a serious miscalculation in crying 'political' (ie state), given that the case has arisen from extremely
personal incidents involving
individuals - if mr assange believes that this is a 'political' prosecution, then he must therefore believe that he
himself is a
political figure with
political power akin to the power invested in the representative of a
state. the fact that the work undertaken by his organization may have
political implications is irrelevant here - unless he also claims that he consented to engage in a
political fuck. i appreciate that mr assange's lawyers are attempting to stave-off the strong possibility of a politically motivated extradition attempt by the united states (in relation to his actions in his capacity as the head of wikileaks), but this is a separate matter (which involves many other protagonists), and should be treated as such - lest mr assange and his team wish to be tarred by the same accusations which they level at the state prosecutors.
in essence, mr assange has got himself into some trouble with two women who may, or may not, be proven to be scorned-and-vindictive lovers cynically taking advantage of sweden's peculiarly tight sex-laws and the super-sleuth's subconscious hankering for established political status - but he must deal with this situation as a fallible human individual, and
not as an irreproachable infallible all-powerful political figurehead of the type which he professes to expose and discredit through his work. julian assange is
not helping his case, nor endearing himself to supporters, by threatening, in the manner of a blackmailer, to make further damaging revelations in the event that action is taken against him - surely these revelations should be made
regardless of third party actions, and without further ado, that is his job, and one for which he is admired. if the united states administration seeks to take advantage of the swedish prosecution in order to extradite mr assange, it is
they who will lose the political initiative - and even more political standing than they already have done.
by intimidating companies which have elected
not to do business with
wikileaks,
operation payback (which is being conducted by the group known as
anonymous) is, by association,
also damaging the reputation of mr assange, not to mention the prospects of the entire
wikileaks venture - for the ideology of freedom is absolutely and irreparably undermined by attempting to coerce other self-governing organizations to support one's own cause; any private sector business ultimately has the right to chose its customers - herein is enshrined the concept known as
liberty - and contractual disputes must be resolved in time-honoured fashion. the companies whom
anonymous is targeting do not
force any individual or organization to make use of their services, and,
ipso facto, it is wholly immoral to gang up against and
force such companies to serve any particular individual or organization, even though one's oppressor may be doing
exactly that - those who use their power to bully others in this fashion are, by definition, no better than the fascist states which they claim to wish to depose. to undermine an authoritarian state is vital, but to replace it with a totalitarian one is fatal. to replace fear with fear is revolting, to replace the ideology of fear refreshing.
so it seems that julian assange wants to be a pop-star and politician all at the same time - but he can't, because the concept of each degrades the other. he's got to choose. the politician must have impeccable integrity and avoid sleeping with anarchists - otherwise no-one will grant him power and status; the pop-star must break every rule and never sleep within the boundaries of established society - otherwise he will not garner fame and fortune. contradictorily, the famous anarchist, julian assange, has been sleeping with the social-establishment and yet desires power - and he has now landed in purgatory. personally, i think he would do better selling his secrets and becoming an outlaw-star...
...but it's a free world...
give me a capitalist enterprise any day - at least you're told what you're getting for your money...but a non-profit-making company? who knows?
