Julian Assange wants his bail address kept private

From here:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tried to hide his bail address from the public in an astonishing move for the man responsible for leaking thousands of diplomatic secrets.

Assange’s lawyers argued that the location – a 10-bedroom stately home – should not be disclosed on grounds of privacy during yesterday’s hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

And who can blame him? After all, it’s so inconvenient to have one’s private life plastered on the Internet for everyone to see.

Poor Julian; now everyone knows he is languishing in a 10 bedroom mansion. We can only hope his telephone is bugged.

26 thoughts on “Julian Assange wants his bail address kept private

  1. Given the nature of his alleged offence, I suspect that the more public his private life becomes the more sympathy he’ll get. If he wasn’t a controversial figure, the sympathy would probably be overwhelming. I think his desire for privacy has more to do with the hostility being whipped up against him.

    Have you googled “Wikileaks +samizdat”? You may want to change the name of your blog. It would be interesting to get Solzhenitsyn’s take on the whole Wikileaks thing. He might have a wee bit of sympathy for the people in the picture from your 10 December post.

    • Highly unlikely since the Dec. 10 post has a photo of a group proclaiming “Smash U.S. Imperialism” from “Socialist alternatives” and Solzhenitsyn had, to put it mildly, a dim view of socialism:

      It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current.

      I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering my personal criticism of the Western system to present socialism as an alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the United States.

  2. I make no judgement – I have no idea what ideas those carrying the sign attach to the word “socialism”. I’m pretty sure, however, that the meaning Solzhenitsyn attached to the word bears little resemblance to Fox News’ use of the word. Without agreed on definitions, we all just talk past each other.

    • So you think Solzhenitsyn would have sympathy for a group of people marching under a banner emblazoned with something for which he has no use – but only because they don’t know what the word means?. Good grief.

      And what’s Fox News got to do with it!?

      • I don’t know what’s not to undertand about my Fox News reference. Many of the people I currently work and am friends with use the term “socialism” in a way that would have been totally foreign to Solzhenitsyn when he was in the Gulag. I suspect that their usage of the term owes more to Fox News than any real understanding of history. I even had a grade 5 boy in my Pioneer Club group at church talk about how bad socialism is. He was clearly parroting things he had heard without any understanding.

  3. I don’t know if he would have sympathy or not – and neither do you. I do know that I’m enjoying his book The Oak and the Calf; which I finally started reading yesterday. That’s what brought samizdat to mind.

  4. Ok – Warren and David, how about each of you defining what you mean by “socialism”? I consider myself to be a socialist, but perhaps I am not using the word correctly. By “socialist”, I mean that I believe that big government isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and that the government has a proper role in providing social services like health care, unemployment insurance, welfare, job training, etc.

    The problem with these hot button words, as Warren has pointed out, is that they tend to mean different things to different people. If I tell someone that I consider myself to be a socialist, and they immediately think “communist”, and start arguing with me – the conversation isn’t going to get very far, is it?

    • Kate, that’s a good question; one I haven’t thought carefully and long enough about. How about I’ll start with this (it’s kind of like a “you know you’re a red neck if” list):

      Where I live, I’m a socialist if:
      – I believe in any form of gun control;
      – I have doubts that shooting someone who breaks into my house is always a good idea;
      – I believe that climate change could be happening;
      – I don’t believe that all civil servants are lazy and over paid (but all military are unquestioningly excused because they’re willing to die defending America);
      – I believe the Constitution may not be perfect;
      – I believe in universal health care;
      – I believe that there are occasions when the government should help the poor;
      – I don’t believe the poor are mostly lazy and would rather feed from the public trough than get a “real” job (even if they’re only getting a couple of hundred dollars a month and still can’t feed their children);
      – I believe that increasing taxes could ever be justified under any circumstannce;
      – I don’t believe that taxes should be lowered regardless of the impact;
      – I don’t believe that public education should be abolished;
      – I don’t believe that most teachers in the public system are lazy, over paid, and incompetent (and should probably be fired);
      – I don’t believe the military will immediately collapse if DADT is repealed;
      – I question if spending a trillion dollars a year on defence (more than the rest of the world combined) is really justified;
      – I question the notion that the Israelis are always right and the Palestinians are always wrong;
      – I show any sympathy for illegal immigrants (or their children);
      – I believe in any form of regulation for industry and business, or question the notion that unfettered capitalism will always lead to the preferred outcome;
      – have any sympathy for unions, or believe that there are times when they play a useful or necessary role;
      – I don’t look upon the French with complete disdain;
      – etc., etc., etc..

      Where I live, I’m proud to be considered a socialist.

    • I would go along with the OED which defines socialism as:

      a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole….

      and it goes on to say:

      The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however , it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy

      • Do you think socialism can be properly defined without reference to Marx and Engels? Can it be untwined from Stalinism and the Soviet Union of the Cold War in the eyes of the average American? I’m sympathetic to “it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market.” emphasis mine). And I return to my earlier comment: “I make no judgement – I have no idea what ideas those carrying the sign attach to the word “socialism”.”

  5. Warren,
    You really need a reality check.
    Dick Morris on O’reilly last night put forward his definition of socialist -the one the European Socialists use for themselves. O’Reilly (a Harvard grad) maintains the classic -government to own the means of production.
    Your own bias is a mile wide. Cut David some slack. He has a thoughtfully arrived at position.
    Peace,
    Jim

    • Jim, when commenting on this blog, I try to keep in mind the spirit of David’s words from his “About” page:

      . . . I write this blog for my own entertainment and to poke fun at the religious and political establishment. As Kingsley Amis said: “If you can’t annoy somebody, there’s little point in writing”.

  6. As a retiree and a political junkie, I watch a lot of politics on TV -and much of it on Fox.
    What I hear on Fox as tags for the 20% of Americans who self-identify as liberals are: loons, far left bomb throwers (the 8% representing the hard left),pinheads -but, to the best of my recollection, never socialists.
    Your unsupported generaliztions in defence of your opionions don’t do you justice.
    Peace,
    Jim

    • Jim, I agree that “liberal” is used (and misused) more frequently as a term of derision, but, where I live, I bet you would be considered a socialist too – as are most Canadians generally.

      I don’t have TV at home, but visit Fox News online regularly (along with a variety of other news sites). My wife had knee-replacement surgery on Tuesday, and I caught a little of O’Reilly in her hospital room last night. I almost had to transfer her morphine drip to my arm. 😯

      By the way, what should I read into your comment about him being a Harvard Grad? Ignatieff is both a Harvard grad and professor.

  7. Jim, where the heck did that 8:53 post come from?? Posting before your second cup of coffee again? I think Warren was just exaggerating to make a point.

    Warren, I see Marx and Engels as the forrunners of Communism, not democratic socialism. Maybe the word “socialist” has become defined in so many different ways that it has lost its meaning.

  8. Kate
    Apologies for the early post. I had to drive the kids into school with their quarter-ton of party treats.
    Warren
    (As a former NDP insider),what you see is what you get with Jack. He is consistent and quite representative of the Toronto party elite.
    God, family and guns sounds pretty good to me. My American brothers welcome me with open arms!

  9. Jim, I can assure you that I’m no NDP sympathizer – and never have been. I was in high school in BC when Barrett came to power. Strangely, my American brothers welcome me with open arms as well – even though I think some of their ideas are totally out to lunch. Go figure.

    Think of at least some of what I have to say as counterbalancing satire and sarcasm. The truth likely lives somewhere in between.

    Part of why I’m not partial to the sort of commentary that Fox is noted for is because of my red neck relatives from Alberta (who I love dearly). Much of their venom is reserved especially for southern Ontario and stems from a deep rooted belief that Ontario elites screwed western farmers early in the 20th century with transportation tariffs. They lap up the sort of stuff Beck and O’Reilly have to say, but aim it in a different direction. They don’t need any more encouragement in their prejudices.

    • I can assure you it’s prejudice. I’ve got a couple of elderly aunts who faithfully forward the latest shocking, conspiracy e-mail; only to have me point them to Snopes.com and show them there is no truth in it. I do enjoy dialoguing with my uncle who is a riding president for Conservative party, though. He can take a good shot and laugh about it. And my grandfather, who ran for the Social Credit in the 70s, was truly a man of integrity – even if he did have blinders to a lot of things.

      Alberta (a province where I enjoyed living), will keep playing the victim card even when it is richer than all the other provinces combined.

      • I stand corrected – my grandfather ran for the Social Credit (federally) in 1968. He came in a distant third to the winning PC candidate; but he beat the NDP candidate. To bring this topic marginally around to where it started, why worry about our personal lives being on the Internet? Most of the details can be found there already.

  10. The “Toronto party elite” are a part of why I am no longer a member of the NDP. I wish we could resurrect the CCF.

    Jim, yes it is, if it is based on an 80 year old grudge. How much snow did you have to plow through this morning??

  11. Kate
    I was poking Warren that the Albertans are, in fact, correct in their assumption of central Canadian greed and, if they are right, so too are Beck and O’Reilly.
    We got off scott free from shovelling.
    Jim

Leave a Reply