Who cares what I think about WikiLeaks? But since you asked…

WikiLeaks is an organization “…which considers itself a new form of investigative journalism aiming to bring transparency to the duplicitous antics of the troubled and competitive world” (Kinsman 2011) Wikileaks ‘leaks’ information that is otherwise not available to the public and exposes the activities and secrets of governments. It came into being in 2006 when its existence was rather obscure. Over the course of 2010 however, Wikileaks had three major releases of US cables including footage of an apache helicopter strafing people with gunfire, the Afghan War Diary and the Iraqi war logs. These major releases got Wikileaks a lot of attention, casting the spotlight on the founder and public face of the organization Julian Assange. The United States want to have Assange under trial in an American court; Assange has stated that his imprisonment or death will not stop Wikileaks. A 1.4 GB file with a 256 bit encryption (impossible to crack) named ‘Insurance.aes256’ will be released if Assange is apprehended or dies. Insurance has been made available for download.

I first was introduced to Wikileaks via mainstream media; it seemed exciting and amusing at the time that this small organization was giving the super power that is the United States a hard time. Now I am weary of the implications Wikileak’s activities will have in the future. This transparency that Assange wants to achieve would seem to be the next step in strengthening the relationship between the citizen and government. It is great that WikiLeaks are giving people around the world an awareness of the workings of their governments, but they need to be careful in the information that they ‘leak’ as it could endanger lives.  A nation with a transparent government could be susceptible to foreign inquisition; national security could be at risk and harder to maintain for such a government.

WikiLeaks brings into question what is right and what is responsible. According to Alexandra Brunel of Ezine Articles.com “The Wikileaks affair asks: who controls the Internet? Who is going to control what information we receive, or tell us what we should believe about what we see? And finally: is our ignorance about what governments do in our name sustainable when, suddenly and more than ever, we are citizens of the world?”

An article from the Aljazeera website ‘Profile: Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks’ states that “…the ability to leak sensitive documents through a dispersed, secretive, multinational organisation has significantly changed the way governments are held to account.” Overall, WikiLeaks is hopefully going to bring about an era in which governments are more open to the public.

       ---->     http://insurance.aes256.org/     <----

http://EzineArticles.com/5525279

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/feb11/kinsman.pdf

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2010/11/20101129123639239818.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-08/us/wikileaks.poison.pill_1_julian-assange-wikileaks-key-encryption?_s=PM:US

Are you an extremist or just a bad politician?

I think that the Australia First Party (AFP) cannot be described as an extremist group but rather a political party whose views and policies have extremist/racial undertones. By racial undertones I mean, the way they supported the events of the Cronulla riots. The way in which the AFP thought that the Australians who attacked Muslim Australians were ‘reclaiming their beach’, shows perhaps the racist undertone I have suggested. Giving a nod towards an event such as the Cronulla riots is not characteristic of a political party but more of an extremist group. Without the recognition of being party, Australia First could be labelled an extremist group with little hesitation. Besides being similar to extremist groups, deterrence to their influence is their over-emphasis on domestic issues. This focus on domestic issues may contribute to their nationalist visage.  

What the Australia First Party sees as ‘divisive’ is actually what makes our country unique and culturally enriched. Multiculturalism has done much for this country economically in terms of the contribution small businesses bring to the economy, a significant proportion of small business owners are of varying ethnic backgrounds. Immigrants from Europe and Asia have greatly contributed to the country they swore allegiance to. Why try and get rid of multiculturalism? ‘Try’ being a key word, as you can’t truly abolish multiculturalism.

An example of an extremist group is the Hammerskin Nation, a group of men and women living the Skinhead lifestyle. There are fourteen words that act as their slogan, "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children." When juxtaposed with the Hammerskin Nation, Australia First Party does not seem as openly radical or extreme in their views as the skinheads are. One key difference that is slightly unsettling concerning Australia First is the fact that they are a legitimate political party capable of causing political change. Perhaps they are more extreme than groups such as Hammerskin Nation who partake in forms of activism, in that they are proposing legitimate political change as a party.     

Is the Australia First Party an extremist group under the guise of a political party? A definition I found of Extremist is ‘one who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics’. The Australia First Party falls under this definition as their policies are beyond the norm, the abolishment of multiculturalism is a good example here. However, the Australia First Party is exempt from being defined as an extremist group in my opinion. They are just a political party with some eccentric and unorthodox policies. And a tacky webpage.

http://www.hammerskins.net/

http://ausfirst.alphalink.com.au/