Thanks for the link piorot.
I am having trouble with my browser.
Dropping out and locking up, now using fire fox but in trouble with spell check so returning to Micro soft and locking up.
Banjo, not being big headed, but if I was not so amused and had less problems with pc this thread would have a hundred links to prove you wrong.
In fact Liberal and Labor, at first, feared the loss to her, even I knew she spoke for many.
Remember! in politics 80% think alike on most issues.
A stand out lesson exists here, truth out weights our opinions.
Maybe your thoughts on Assange are wrong too.

Say no more Poirot, and you have let your link do the talking.

Pauline Hansen aside can we get back to importance of defending democracy and help by extension Julian Assange, by telling your local member how you feel about the sovereignty of Australian citizenship, is it time we remind our leadership that we still have a voice.

Imagine if you will, that Sweden was trying to extradite Assange from Australia not the UK and the our Govt (of any persuasion) was still sitting on it's hands, still sitting pat and not saying what they think about the issue of Australian citizenship and how it relates to this matter.

Imagine if you will this scenario; Indonesia wants to extradite a senior australian politician to face questioning over a unsubstantiated allegation made in that country. What do we do say?, that we have an obligation to comply and send him/her with a note attached saying don't forget to give him back when your finished with him/her. Or would we offer them an opportunity to conduct their investigation here. (question the accused here.)

I don't believe we would capitulate and allow extradition for questioning, nor should we be allowing countries to hand our citizen Julian Assange around amongst each other to gain brownie points from the US, whom obviously have plans for his future.

Are we to except the new re-jigged US version of democracy, shrouded in secrecy and achieved by stealth, surveillance, media control and drone.

Or does the fair dinkum Aussie model, still have a chance to breathe in our country ?.
Knowing where they (our pollies) stand on Assange and his situation, encapsulates this, you should want answers from them.

If the US were to extradite Assange (an australian) to face a grand jury, where does your local member stand on this ?. Ask them.

A link to make it easier http://www.aph.gov.au/ to locate your local members email address.

Tell them it matters, I believe this is about all a citizen can do these days.

Belly,
As I said earlier i don't have one iota of interest in Assange. He just should get the same level of support that any Aus citizen gets when they fall foul of the law in other countries. No more no less.

In relation to my using Pauline Hanson as an example of political persecution here.

Pauline was our first political prisoner,enabled by a Qld Labor government, no doubt about that.

The Qld government prosecuted her wrongly for fraud.

If anyone disputes that, show evidence of an apology and compensation after aquital.

Show evidence of her being awarded costs.

Show where the false witness was brought to book.

Show where the $500,000 that Pauline paid back to the Qld Electoral Commission was returned to her. It was not, and aquital meant she was entitled to those funds.

Banjo do you re links related to claims?
Are you keeping up with every day news.
After Abbott,s rather dirty hunting her down, what court could charge her other than that one.
It is an undisputed fact Abbott has the dirty hands here.
IF Britain ever enters another country,s Embassy it will kill Diplomatic immunity.

Banjo, in his post of Tuesday, 21 August 2012 at 11:16:07 AM, makes the point that the persecution of Pauline Hanson was:

"A disgraceful episode in our history."

He is absolutely correct about that.

Banjo is absolutely wrong, IMO (although ably abetted by the opening poster herself, with her admirable link to Margot Kingston's article, in diverting the discussion from Assange) to think that he ought not "have one iota of interest in Assange". Before I try to continue, let me make it clear that this post is not an attack upon Banjo, nor, by inference Hasbeen. I say 'try' because my online experience of recent days has been (no pun intended) one of what I think to be targetted disruption because of my interest in Assange, and my attempts at posting may be delayed from time to time. Poirot, or anyone else familiar with Twitter, will be able to see what I mean with but a few Twitter searches of my various timelines. I tweet as @ForrestGumpp .

Of the but two Wikileaked US diplomatic cables with which I have any direct familiarity, my familiarity has been derived through one article, and one General discussion topic, here on OLO. The one arising out of the OLO topic 'Sanctuary' is of cable STOCKHOLM 748 dated 2008, and provides background information, once understood in context, as to at least one reason why Assange is being so relentlessly pursued. The other is the cable that revealed former Senator Mark Arbib's 'protected informant' status within what has, courtesy of Wikileaks, been shown to have been the extraordinarily 'globalised' insecurety of the US endigitized diplomatic information record system.

The Arbib revelations, as they bear upon the background to the 'coup' that removed Rudd from the primeministership in 2010, also provide, to those who recognise the significance of the endigitization that commenced in the 80's of the Australian electoral rolls, and of Rudd's 'control freaking' intrusion into electoral matters with the DPMC-managed Electoral Reform Green Paper of 2009, an indirect link to the persecution of Pauline Hanson.

Hopefully TBC

Continued

Here's a link to a post of mine made in November 2009, from which viewers can scroll and perhaps get a bit of an insight into what Kevin Rudd's Electoral Reform Green Paper was about: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3212#76257
Its arcane and dry-as-dust stuff, but there as a matter of record.

Now the thing was, IMO, that Kevvie's little DPMC foray into electoral reform, and specifically that part of it that may have foreshadowed 'automatic enrollment' of electors to be effected by the Australian Electoral Commission, as opposed to enrollment effected of an elector's own motion, may have been seen in some quarters (perhaps quarters outside of Australia, even) as threatening a 'good thing' already clandestinely in place that already did this 'job'.

The threat may have been seen as a soon-to-take-place design and emplacement of an official, transparent, and auditable system of automatic electoral enrollment (and transfer of enrollment) resulting in the throwing up of evidence as to the existence and extent of the putative clandestine system doing the same thing, to the eventual end of manipulating RIGHT ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM Australian electoral outcomes.

So, even though he may not have realized specifically what it was that brought it upon him, it looks like a decision was made, somewhere, that Kevvie had to go.

Courtesy of Wikileaks, Assange, and the cable dumps, we see Arbib and others enjoying some form of 'protected' status seemingly REPORTING BACK during 2009 as to progress in this replacing of Rudd!

It is also a curious thing that the electoral enrollment statistics showing enrollments as a percentage (92%, from memory) of the theoretically maximum possible supplied by the AEC to DPMC only commenced in the 90's. A study submitted to the Inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 Federal elections claimed 100% (or greater) enrollment as at 1987.

Amazingly, to my knowledge, no auditable continuing statistics comparing electoral enrollments with population statistics as to persons qualified to enroll, have ever been published by the ABS.

Hopefully TBC