Nov 28, 2012

Financial giants use McClelland statements to blockade WikiLeaks

The companies strangling WikiLeaks are partly relying on the Australian government's discredited claims about the illegality of WikiLeaks' publication of diplomatic cables.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

Giant US financial intermediary Visa is partly relying on the Gillard government’s claims that WikiLeaks acted “illegally” to justify its ongoing financial blockade of the whistleblower and media outlet, new material obtained by WikiLeaks has revealed.

WikiLeaks’s campaign against the illegal blockade, which has strangled the organisation of more than 90% of its funds, has suffered a setback this week after the European Commission declined to investigate the blockade (specifically, of the company DataCell, which WikiLeaks had been using) despite the European Parliament resolving last week that the Commission should seek to prevent the “arbitrary refusal of payments by credit card companies”.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

17 thoughts on “Financial giants use McClelland statements to blockade WikiLeaks

  1. CML

    Clearly Roxon is stretching the truth when she says it is only a problem for Visa Europe and the EU. If the credit card companies are relying on Australian government statements, then it is very much OUR problem.

  2. Gavin Moodie

    Yes, this is bloody disgraceful. Nonetheless, I note that it is still possible to donate to Wikileaks using one’s credit card.

  3. shepherdmarilyn

    RElying on Gillard and Australia for the law is absurd, they don’t even know what our laws are.

  4. Scott Grant

    Perhaps we should all stop using the services of Visa and Mastercard and Amex until they can prove that they are not acting illegally and have never acted illegally.

  5. Scott

    Crikey’s coverage of the Assange/Wiki leaks affair continues to be a bit bipolar.

    One one hand you say that Assange is in danger of being extradited to the US because the US has issued a sealed indictment against him for his illegal wikileaks activities.

    And now you say that the credit card companies are acting incorrectly as wikileaks has committed no crimes and the US Grand Jury is coming up empty.

    Can’t have it both ways. Either Assange has something to fear (in which case the Credit card companies are acting correctly) or Assange has nothing to fear (and the credit card companies are being unreasonable)

  6. Gavin Moodie

    But this piece specifically states that ‘no indictment has yet been revealed of anyone beyond the accused leaker, Bradley Manning . . .’.

    The US locks up people without charge.

  7. Paddy Forsayeth

    Scott, Visa and Mastercard are acting against Wikileaks on an assumption of illegal activity, quite contrary to basic law and social rights. Imagine the uproar if companies and Gov. withdrew services on the basis of suggesting you had done something illegal and proving that you hadn’t. I think Visa withdrew its service under pressure from the US admin.

  8. Christopher Nagle

    Wikileaks treads a tendentious line between treason and dissent. So why shouldn’t it be treated with equally ambiguous behavior by its enemies?

  9. Gavin Moodie

    Treason is killing the head of state or the prime minister, or levying war against the state. How has Wikileaks done either of these?

  10. AR

    CNagle – please explain how one it’s treason to poke the Hegemon when one is not a citizen of the Benighted States.
    You also seem to think that dissent=treason, as did the unlamented xtn nutter, John Ashcroft, who was shrub’s first A/G – dumb or dumber.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details