Wikileaks party hypocricy
Censorship is not free speech
It sounds like what she really wants is free speech for one group of people (that includes herself) and censorship for other groups of people, a sort of ‘apartheid of free speech’.
Posted on August 6, 2013, in Australia, Censorship, Cognitive Dissonance, deMOCKracy, Politics, Whistle Blowers, WTF and tagged hypocracy, Wikileaks party. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.
She is only a member of the party, she doesn’t make party policy. Is Free Speech the party policy? Maybe you could elaborate a bit.
She is one of the designers, most likely one of the website designers, and she has just finished talking about freedom of speech being a basic human right, and then moderates (i.e censors) comments.
Free speech has again been exposed as a feelgood lie, just like “democracy’ or ‘leaderless movement”.
I stopped going to pages that DON’T moderate because I got sick of reading abuse. I don’t consider free speech to mean the freedom to abuse others and shut down their ability to speak freely. THAT is what moderation is for, which makes their site a safe space for me and others – particularly women who are frequently shut down in political conversation. I wonder why the hating on wikileaks from an occupy group?
Oh the irony that we moderate comments, the reality is we only block comments that make clearly untrue claims or abusive tirades (or from known provocateurs) . But at the same time we don’t claim to be a free speech flag waver either. The entire point of free speech is so that the truth can come from a logical fair and reasoned debate. People who don’t want to be logical or reasonable are just wasting the time time of people who do, so there is no point promoting the causes of time wasters.
Well Debbi; on the internet no-one knows you are a woman unless you volunteer the information, so in that sense it is a level playing field.
There are some serious doubts about wiki leaks as an organization and even more so about the political party. WACA (the Wikileaks Australia Citizens Alliance) drew heavily on Former Occupy Melbourne protesters to make up it’s protest ranks. Not an issue in itself, but when it came to WACA morphing into a party the people (former OM’ers) who actually went face to face with police at embassies weren’t so much as asked if they were interested or wanted input. You can see numerous photos of the various Assange/Manning protest action on this websites. We felt once again we were just used as foot soldiers by people who didn’t want to get their hands dirty ( or perhaps put their asses on the line ) and then once the media profile of the movement had grown, the few remaining demoralized protesters were simply discarded as obsolete goods.
It might be worth you time looking into the candidates Wikileaks party has put forward (especially for Victoria).
If Assange gets elected to the senate seat which is possible, he may still be stuck in London and then who gets the seat?
Neither of the other two Wikileaks Party Candidates for Victoria (Cannold, Kampmark) was born in Australia, and both are Law graduates.
Neither ever went to an Assange/Manning protest that we could see.
Can you see that layers of hypocrisy building up?
See why we might be concerned…
We’ll give more details in a later post
I don’t think Debbi was suggesting that we are moderating this page, (although we are to some extent, except we don’t ask people for their name and email) she was referring to Wikileaks party moderating thier pages and claiming there was nothing wrong with that. I still find it ironic that a party standing for free speech and tansparency wants to moderate pages. I don’t see what it has to do with safety either nor are women shut out of political conversations these days, if they ever were, that’s the usual marxist-feminist litany. 99% of attacks on me online in unmoderated forums have been by other women and one gay man. That’s been my experience.
As for the existence of the Wikileaks party, I was shocked when I found out about it late last year. I knew from experience that once a group morphs into a political party, the sell-out begins. In a latest “question time” Julian Assange answered questions in a very guarded, evasive manner, just like a politician – and , lets be frank, he really doesn’t have that much to say in general that is original or brilliant. I still support his plight for freedom on humanitarian grounds , I think the implications of sexual misconduct are fraudulent and judging by the sentencing Bradley Manning received it is obvious the US government wants to get it’s claws into Assange too. But I don’t see the point of the Wikileaks party, unless it’s a potential vehicle to get Assange out of the Ecuadorian embassy. I didn’t even see much point in Wikileaks itself, as it didn’t reveal much that wasn’t already known anyway. It was a stunt that backfired badly and it sure isn’t worth making a political party out of that. I don’t hate Wikileaks, it has just turned into a giant mess and has ruined the lives of many people already. Also, it has little to do with the Occupy movement per se.
Well, Grumpy Cat, I’m glad that’s your experience, you obviously don’t wind people up as much as I do. A classic example of this for me was the decision to not moderate the Free University of Occupied Brisbane facebook page, a decision I wholeheartedly supported in GA. It got so nasty in there from people just really defending their right to call women dumb cunts who shouldn’t be so stupid as to voice their opinion if they don’t want a man telling them they’re dumb cunts and from people who opposed the premise of equal rights for LGBTI, Indigenous and women because well they’re obviously sub standard and they should be allowed to be fair game for violence.
That’s my experience and it got far worse than that, with threats to my inbox and when I blocked them personally, one of them actually came to a FUOB GA and started verbally attacking me there in person!! This was not just some trolling exercise, this was hard core psychological violence and it reached from cyber space to MY Sunday afternoon. It was the last FUOB meeting I went to because I no longer just FELT unsafe, I WAS NOT SAFE. In fact, I was vocally anti feminism until this experience and then realised that being anti feminist is like being anti peace. I am a humanist first and foremost, but I now see the value of feminism, in fact the necessity of it, in realigning the natural order of equity among all people because it is patriarchy that creates the distortion. So, anyway, I’m pleased that you’ve never felt unsafe or that you’ve never felt the need to create safe spaces online, but your experience is limited to you and unless you only ever want to hear from people who share your experience, you should moderate, it’s as simple as that. I have also been abused by women of the femnazi persuasion for not being feminist and that was also ugly and shut me out of that forum as well.
Wikileaks was not founded on, nor professes the philosophy of Anarchy, although in many ways it appeals to anarchists in general and certainly the Anonymous movement, which is closely aligned does have anarchist tendencies as does Adbusters, which started the occupy movement. For this reason, I’m surprised that you are surprised by their formation of a political party. I have some anarchistic tendencies myself, but I don’t feel so superior in my leanings that I begrudge others who don’t share them. I am friendly and open to conversation and debate with anyone, regardless of their political or philosophical disposition, as long as they are able to be respectful and not apply power-over techniques to “win”, whatever that happens to mean to them.
I agree that politics tends to attract a certain type of person who is then easily corrupted, regardless of how nobly they were initially motivated. Not always, but usually. We already know that JA is a bit of a megalomaniac, so it was no surprise to me when he formed the party. I don’t believe it’s a stunt to get him out of the embassy because that was never going to work and blind freddie could see that a mile away.
Now, as an occupier, I’m frankly stunned that you don’t see the point of wikileaks, unless, again, you’re basing your view on your own experience, and those of like-minded people and failing, again, to see that probably the vast majority of people in the world don’t share your experiences. We all “knew” the things that were revealed, but they never hit the mainstream because there was never much in the way of hard proof. Now, thanks to wikileaks and more particularly, to the whistleblowers, there is, and now, thanks to them, this conversation about diplomacy-for-war-for-profit-and-fun is mainstream. Maybe we “always knew”, but the vast majority did not, and now they do.
I wonder how you can say that wikileaks has ruined people’s lives? Did it groom and manipulate whistleblowers or did people whistleblow because the governments they worked for are seriously messed up and these whistleblowers could not in all good conscience let the proof of what is being done in citizen’s names go idly by? Were those whistleblower’s identities revealed by wikileaks or by a failing of its ability to keep people’s leaks anonymous, or were those people’s identities revealed by them and them alone to people other than wikileaks? Are those whistleblowers being persecuted, slandered, vilified, tortured and imprisoned by wikileaks, or are these things happening to them by governments that want their dirty little secrets kept secret? Are those whistleblowers being persecuted, slandered, vilified, tortured and imprisoned because of wikileaks or because they have disrupted the corruption of business as usual in the US military industrial complex?
As for having little to do with the occupy movement. For the mainstream Joe Blow who thinks occupy is some weirdo hippie fest, the evidence of things we are protesting about; corruption in government through corporate interference in the democratic process and corporate overseeing of policy etc exists only because of whistleblowers and organisations that protect them, such as wikileaks.
I think you have two main threads of discussion here so I’ll try to answer each separately.
Occupy, moderation, free speech and feminism.
The online discussions that were going on during occupy for us at OM seemed to be mostly quite alien to what was happening on the group at the camps.
Trolls and flame wars were common, One astute observer noted that many of the trolls were mainly active 8am- 9am and then 7pm-11pm, It looked like paid trolls picking up some extra cash fitting around their 9-5 jobs.
We did note that lack of moderation (under the guise of free speech) tended to be one sided and allowed certain people views/characters to be attacked while other views and people were staunchly defended. The hypocrisy was at times bleedingly obvious, but any that wished to point out such hypocrisy were made the next target of the group-think, group bullying.
Most occupies operated under the thought terminating cliche of ‘being inclusive’ so even the most vile of characters were given license to abuse in what ever way they chose. So these vile characters would often attack in co-ordinated packs any one who might have the courage to call them out on their abusive behavior. What you experienced was the work of agent provocateurs working with the vile characters to slowly remove all integrity for the occupy camps and activism in general itself. These attacks were so vicious, the people attacked were often left dumbstruck and bewildered and simply walked away.
You should find about ‘the road to serfdom’ by FA Hayek to see the way occupies were run.
Also the “Delphi technique” I’ll add some links, we have posts on the phenomena.
You were probably on the right track being anti-feminist, and it’s one of the reasons they wanted to shut you down, It’s no surprise the Femi-nazis attacked you.
Men and women are different, there is no denying that, and as such they live different lives, especially in the matters of reproduction. Feminism is also a outgrowth of Marxism rather than a genuine grass roots Womens’ movement.
The most staunch feminists are heterosexual, middle class, university educated, white, career women. Their principle concerns are higher salaries and access to position of senior management, I.e power. Ultimately these women act just like the ‘patriarchal’ men they despise and blame for all of the ills of the world. Basically these feminists have a ‘grass is greener on the other side of the fence’ mentality, and want all the benefits of being a Man and none of the responsibilities or liabilities. So rather than actually jump the fence and get a sex change (and take all of the issues and challenges that come with that option), they want to simply legitimize sticking their head through the fence and nibble which ever grass is better at the time, and chastise those in the other pasture for thinking that is not fair.
When do you hear of feminists screaming out that ‘the draft’ (compulsory wartime military service for men) discriminates against women? Never!
I’d bet the majority of ‘Feminists’ will be running for the kitchen to put on an apron if another large war comes.
Feminism like its Marxist parent is an unfair philosophy based on flawed reasoning.
We had a feminism appreciation week not so long ago and i offer some links, ‘Erin Pizzey’ is a good place to start.
Wikileaks and Wikileaks party
Ever heard of Cryptome.org ?
It was running long before wikileaks and its founder ( a one man operation) stated this “What do they [Wikileaks] need all the money for?”. He was literally running the thing from his bedroom for almost nothing.
Much of the ‘Secrets’ we well known about before JA and Wikileaks, much of what WL disclosed was new only to people who weren’t into ‘conspiracy theories’. The gunship footage was freely available in military circles and some was even on youtube, hardly a secret.
You should watch ‘We steal secrets” for more detail.
WL policy of not disclosing the source often lead to greater punishment for whistle blowers and generally only served to protect WL and JA rather than the whistle blower source.
In Australia there are specific laws to protect whistle blowers, but they are only ever applied to you if you declare yourself a whistle blower and you can give up your right to privacy along with it.
How ever if you leak anonymously to WL you have not declared yourself a whistle blower and cannot use that protection. Even today JA does not categorically state the Bradley Manning is the source of much of the classified info WL recieved (he is only described as the likely source), and by not stating this he makes it harder to Manning to protect himself. Look at Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon papers, he used whistle blower protection and never served time. Manning has been in solitary for years now.
It is entirely possible that Wikileaks is ‘honey pot’ to catch whistle blowers rather than actually leak the truth.
We hear much about Manning, but what of all the other leakers? have they just disappeared ? Is Manning just being use to make an example of to threaten all other possible leakers?
We do see the point of leaking secrets about corruption but think that wikileaks has been at least derelict in its responsibility to the leakers.
Where does Wikileaks pay homage to Crypto.me ?
Wikileaks was not the original concept just a popular and well publicized copy of it.
The worst part about wikileaks is some of its claimed supporters, who will waffle lyrically about protecting whistle blowers and then attack anyone who blows the whistle on corruption if it is not convenient to them.
Some of the things that went on at occupy camp (OM being no different) really deserve whistle blowing, we have done some, and we got attacked even by a person in the Wikileaks party organization for whistle blowing.
See Hypocracy = Wikileaks party.
Occupy as a weird hippy festival?
Well after all the serious people left, having wised up to Occupy as being designed to fail, and getting tired of babysitting, lazy, selfish ungrateful 18-30 year old hipsters and hippies. Then it was only hipsters and hippies, and then it all just became about having fun in a park until it collapsed into despotic tyranny and squalor.
The first people forced out were people who wanted to talk about monetary systems and legal research, then after that it was anyone decent and sensible with the courage to speak up.
Hell, we even had Albert Langer (a former Australian political prisoner who served time over a voting campaign called “Neither!”) walk out in disgust at how unfair and biased things were.
So a big part of this website is the outreach and awareness aspect, *and* allowing people who want to have a conversation about important issues to do so in a reasonable respectful manner.
Free speech + fair debate == > the truth
We also call out people on their bad behavior to keep this website (and the in person presence) safe.
Unlike Facebook your name mentioned here with a tag is Google searchable and stays (probably) forever.
Abuser + free speech + recording device == > proof of asshole for everyone to see, forever.
When has Julian Assange ever said the phrase ‘Peak Oil’?
That is what all these wars are about largely, that and the tenuous $US = Saudi Oil.
And you have almost definitely seen this meme by now:
This is the first place it was ever posted.
It’s not a coincidence that it was posted on September 11, 11 years after the event.
Debbi, the only person to call me a cunt was, you guessed it, another woman. (She did apologize later). I did find some of the men insufferable and arrogant, but i put it down to the fact that they were young, cool hipster types, not sexism. In Melbourne you are more dicriminated against when you don’t live in a “cool” hipster area than on the basis of your sex or even your age, but i can imagine that Brisbane men are a bit rude and redneck, they do have that reputation. Still , we had a lot of acusations coming from femi-nazi types against the men in the OM camp, which were often undeserved.
Personally, I am not against women having rights or being respected, but I sometimes get the feeling women were more respected by men before feminism and feminism earned them the right to be abused just like one of the guys. I used to be pro-feminism in the past until I had a good look at what happened historically. I agree with occupymelbourne.net that the women who pushed feminism were white, often wealthy and often unmarried(childless). Of course they wanted and needed the right to careers, recognition and equal pay. The problem with that is, that they dragged the majority of women with them and these women now find themselves in a situation of having to work a double shift or having their husbands and /or partners unemployed. Basically the lot of working class women even in the past. Is that an improvement? it’s a huge topic, though.
I also reckon the technological advances of the 20 th century freed women from domestic chains and feminism was not the main factor in women going to university or having smaller families.
But too some extent I agree with you, there is a misogynist streak in our society, which dates back to our judeo-christian heritage- and this clashes with the more matriarchal aspects of ancient western civilizations and tribes, our true roots.