The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Keeping Australia safe by an improper exercise of power? > Comments

Keeping Australia safe by an improper exercise of power? : Comments

By Surya Deva, published 27/7/2007

It is time the Australian Government showed some character in protecting the human rights of its citizens and non-citizens living in Australia legally.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All
I accuse government ministers of conspiring to deceive the people of Australia.

How do I know? Where is the proof?

Ah, I can't reveal my sources - it's a secret!
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 27 July 2007 9:27:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That Mr Howard is intrinsically racist is not always easily definable but is obvious to many normal people. Of course there have been many blatant displays of racism-and Mr Howard's small minded attitude serves to legitimize racism - Australians are often largely ignorant of their own acutely offensive racist attitudes. Assumed superiority, assumed entitlement to better character - Australian is synonymous with ignorance when it comes to worldly matters.

You are either racist in your thinking or you are not-you can not be in between. The attitudes of Howard and his Ministers are retarded - and dangerous to peaceful futures- Abbott wants to reintroduce corporeal punishment in schools- that's progressive ingenious-only a genius would brutalize youth into submission, don't bother reassessing anachronistic structures and attitudes- just enforce violence - thats power...thats intelligent and I wonder who will get caned the most- ask Mr Haneef what he thinks.

There is a valid reason why millions of people throughout the world are ANGRY with the the 'WEST'.. Its about assumed superiority , assumed entitlement and desperation for power. Abbott Costello and Howard-grow up -or perhaps you ought to be caned, detained before you leave the Australian public in peace
Posted by mu, Friday, 27 July 2007 9:55:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If doctors bury thier mistakes - Immigration Ministers deport theirs!
Posted by Peterm, Friday, 27 July 2007 10:16:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The arrest, detention and cancellation of the visa of Dr Mohammed Haneef by the Australian Government have evoked strong reactions or concerns from a range of people and institutions”, prates the author.

The “strong reactions” have come only from the usual suspects. I would put good money on most Australians not giving two hoots about Haneef, if they have even heard of him. They are probably so sick of hearing human rights fanatics prattling on about the rights of people they (most Australians) regard as threats to themselves and their country that they have switched off. They want their government to protect them. End of story.

Some Australians might also be interested to know who this author, with his foreign name, thinks he is lecturing us on how our government should be treating us and non-citizens living in Australia. His address appears to be Hong Kong.

What really gets up my nose about self-righteous, arrogant people like Surya Deva who say that the Australian government “…. has a duty under the Constitution as well as international law to protect civil liberties not only of its citizens but also of non-citizens in some cases”, is that they only talk about such things when an alien, a terror suspect or some pain in the butt belonging to a minority group is involved. We never hear from them when it comes to the majority.

For mine, the Government is trying do what it is supposed to do: protect us from attack from without and within and, also, from pain- in- the-backside people more interested in the “rights” of the bad guys or suspected bad guys than they are in the majority.

When it comes to the well-being and safety of my country and my fellow citizens, I say, “Stiff cheese Dr. Haneef. Innocent or not, I hope you are soon back in your own country, never to return here”.

To the Government I would say, “Train our own people. Stop importing foreigners, many of whom can’t even communicate in English”
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 27 July 2007 10:43:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If doctors bury their mistakes - Immigration Ministers deport theirs!
Commonwealth Public Officials exercising power without authority commit offences.

Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995
142.2 Abuse of public office
(1) A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the official:
(i) exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s
duties as a Commonwealth public official; or
(iii) uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(b) the official does so with the intention of:
(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or
(ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
Posted by Young Dan, Friday, 27 July 2007 10:46:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a very difficult task to protect the human rights of Australians while similtaneously taking those rights away with draconian laws

Freedon is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 27 July 2007 10:47:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SHONGA; I'm genuinely interested in how you feel, personally, that your rights have been taken away by the Anti-terrorism laws. Could you offer a few examples of the direct impact you've felt? This is not a trick question. Cheers.
Posted by punter57, Friday, 27 July 2007 11:16:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It does not have to affect me personaly to be important. If a gang of armed men burst into the house of my neighbour who I don't talk to or like, line them up and shoot them in the back of the head, it doesn't affect me personally, but it's still wrong, and should be stopped.

Likewise, indefinite detention without charge, abuse of executive power and so on, these may or may not affect me personally, but they're still wrong, and should be stopped.

Of course, you may think it an unfair comparison - but if we can detain someone without charge just because he's accused of terrorism, and if the Minister can detain him when a court has freed him, then why can't government agents just shoot people out of hand? Why draw the line at imprisonment?
Posted by Kyle Aaron, Friday, 27 July 2007 12:02:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know what amazes me about all the people like Leigh who are quite happy to see the back of Dr Haneef and back the governments "innocent or guilty he's going home" stance?

Its the fact that they don't really seem to care about ensuring the right thing is done. If Haneef is guilty of being involved in the plot in the UK then fine lock him up, or deport him to england. However if he isn't then why punish him? Its not going to deter any real terrorists, if anything its going to give terrorist organisations more fuel. What it will do is deter the sort of people we want to come here, the skilled and self sufficient.
Posted by James Purser, Friday, 27 July 2007 12:44:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh

I should know better than to give your posting any credence by responding; but you’ve really soiled your pants today. And it stinks.

You dismiss the ideas of people with whom you disagree not by intelligent counter-argument but by sticking insulting labels them: “the usual suspects”, “human rights fanatics”, “self-righteous, arrogant people” “and “pain-in-the-backside people”.

You invent statistical propositions without a shred of statistical evidence. “…most Australians not giving two hoots about Haneef, if they have even heard of him”; “…prattling on about the rights of people they (most Australians) regard as threats…”; “they only talk about such things when an alien, a terror suspect or some pain in the butt belonging to a minority group is involved. We never hear from them when it comes to the majority”.

You won’t tolerate or debate an argument because the author has a “foreign name".

You appeal to base xenophobic fears, “His address appears to be Hong Kong.”

And your moral code is Hitlerian: “Stiff cheese Dr. Haneef. Innocent or not, I hope you are soon back in your own country, never to return here”.

Innocent or not? When reasonable people are asserting the right of a presumption of innocence or even a basic principle of habeas corpus, you want to deport a person even if he is found to be innocent. You don’t even feel the need to give a reason for your stance. That leaves us to guess that you want Australia to be the preserve of whites. (Whatever will we do with the millions of Indigenous Australians and non-white Australians?)

Your advice to the Government says more about you than about Dr Haneef: “Train our own people. Stop importing foreigners, many of whom can’t even communicate in English”. Wouldn't you feel better in an all-white, English-language-only country? I'll pay your fare if you van find one.

Your post is a clear but repulsive example that the word “right” in the term “right-wing” carries no moral meaning.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 27 July 2007 1:17:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" We never hear from them when it comes to the majority."

Leigh probably said exactly the same thing when we were protesting his and everyone else's loss of habeas corpus. And probably said it without any sense of irony.
Posted by justaguy, Friday, 27 July 2007 1:39:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good one,Punter57. Poor old Shonga will obviously not be able to answer your questions. On his own admission, Shonga is a bit on the sad side, and likes to sound of every now and then - unfortunately without much much regard to the theme he choses and its relationship to his own situation.

He's quite harmless, though, and often displays an acute sense of irony and good humour.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 27 July 2007 1:43:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-terrorism is one of those things that absolutely must be an interception prior to any final proof. Waiting for the bomb to go off and then acting is poor response to terrorist actions. Anti-terrorism is not civil policing. It's active interdiction based on the best information of the moment. The lefties whinging about civil liberties and condemning government will also be first in line to condemn the government when a terrorist is successful in killing some persons or destroying infrastructure. For them, hiding behind the Haneef case is just a way to keep anyone from seeing the smile on their faces as they hope the government falls. Unfortunately, while blaming Howard and government for terrorism their choice of government will have to face the same quandary. To act or not to act. And if one is to act, can one act for the greater good before the bombs ignite. The whingers need not make the hard decisions. Theirs is to finger point and cast aspersions, to detract from their own society in the name of socialist idealism cloaked in democratic values.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 27 July 2007 1:56:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Punter57 , i would ask , exactly what protection do any of us have under these new laws . only 2 people have had the laws applied to them , jihad jack or jack thomas , whatever he wants to call himself , was subjected to control orders because the government couldnt make terror charges stick due to evidence being used that was gained by coersion . and now an doctor being tried on the flimsiest evidence , that he gave an SIM card , which expired before the act of terror it is meant to be linked to . Now if he had of sent them thousands of dollars to fund their campaign , or said "you are doing a really good job " to them about their act , you might have some basis to charge him , but it seems he is being charged and found to be of poor character because he is related to them . by that rule of character , most polititians are of questionable character , as most have some black sheep amongst their relatives . so im sorry but if you want to say that these laws havent hurt anyone personally on these forums , you might be right. but the whole point is they are so open ended , if you were a unionist calling for a strike , you might be considered to be doing something to terrorise your boss and locked up because of that , i dont know. its too easy to be abused as we have now seen .
Posted by david from katanning, Friday, 27 July 2007 2:43:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would just like to point out that the AFP and the DPP have just dropped the charges against Dr Haneef.

This hasn't been about wanting Howard and Co to fail, it's been about ensuring that our nation does not become that which we are trying to fight.
Posted by James Purser, Friday, 27 July 2007 3:31:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Charges dropped: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/27/1990249.htm

I imagine he'll still be deported, assuming the court upholds the decision when it comes back on 8th August - the government doesn't want him hanging around in the country giving interviews and making them and the AFP look as bad as they are.

Mind you, I don't think the guy will mind that much. He probably wants to go home to his wife and never come back here again.

I'm ashamed of my country and government.
Posted by Kyle Aaron, Friday, 27 July 2007 3:48:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At a press conference this afternoon, the Commonwealth DPP Damian Bugg QC says the charges have been dropped because a mistake was made in the case.

"On my view of this matter a mistake has been made and I will examine that because to me the primary decision to make was to determine whether or not this prosecution was on sound footing or not, I've made that determination," he said.

"I'll now take further steps to inquire as to how that mistake occurred."

We all know the mistake occurred becuase the keystone cops stuffed up. Keelty must resign and Andrews and Ruddock should be sacked.
Posted by ruawake, Friday, 27 July 2007 3:58:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
He even said the prosecutor simply made up the information he used in the magistrates court about the SIM card. What on earth they ever arrested him for is beyond me. The cops in London let 3 of the people go without charge, one will die, two others are charged with conspiracy to make explosives and the cousin who got the SIM card has been charged with withholding evidence but has not been told what he withheld.

The met are no more competent than our mob and it is beyond ridiculous that we think we have the right to behave like cowardly weenies while we have bombed and obliterated an entire country based on no provocation whatsoever, murdered nearly 1 million people, made 4.5 million others homeless and stolen billions from them just to please that clown Dubya.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Friday, 27 July 2007 4:38:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The law basing the charge on a "question of character" is substandard in a western democracy. In terms of balancing security and human rights, the Government must tidy up its act in wording these new laws. Some specific points need to spell out exactly what the problem is and how to resolve them. Otherwise in a western democracy, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Not withstanding, the whole section of the law does not suit the interests of Australians and should be dropped before another innocent person is persecuted.
Posted by saintfletcher, Friday, 27 July 2007 4:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Howard government and the Bush government are creating an agenda of fear, instability and political repression in order to rule. This is their "new world order" or dictate. Both have publicly indicated longterm ongoing colonial type looting wars. Bush's "one war following another", and Howard's "long term wars in the Pacific." Saying this and doing this of course are two different things. Here they both have to literally bludgeon any critical thinking and insights. They require a cover to overcome widespread opposition in introducing wideranging dictatorial methods. To do this effectively they need boogeymen and an appropriate ideology. People do not see the agenda that is under way. The politicians will use the military to grab aboriginal lands and use the aboriginals as a source of very cheap labour. Behind the government stand the large mining interests. Again, the military will be used against workers to enforce deeper forms of exploitation entailed in the new industrial laws. Then there is the widespread looting of publicly owned resources, national assets and treasures deviously termed "privatisation." As well, there is the criminal practise of a war being carried out to undermine the publicly owned hospital and medicare system. Criminal in any sense of the word!This requires ongoing political and military repression and attacks on the most basic democratic rights. Hicks or Haneef have broken no laws but they are useful to Howards agenda. And Rudd keeps his mouth shut about the whole process under way.
Posted by johncee1945, Friday, 27 July 2007 5:55:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WHAT SECRET EVIDENCE? - JOHNNIE KNOWS NOTHING

With Haneef being released I'm peeved that the touted SECRET EVIDENCE has not been revealed. If there was evidence sufficient for Formal Kev to remove Dr Haneef's visa and lockup Dr Haneef then it would be nice if Formal Kev, Keystone Keelty or maybe The Bugg told us.

Meanwhile Little Johnnie is blaming Keelty and The Bugg for the stuff up; Says the Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22144151-601,00.html:

"Speaking from Bali this afternoon, Prime Minister John Howard distanced his government from the dramatic collapse today of the terrorism case against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef.

Mr Howard said it was up to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty and federal Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg, QC, to explain what had happened."

Naturally Ruddock knew nothing. The fact that Ruddock's Department (AGs) includes a Counter-Terrorism Strategic Policy Unit http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Organisational_StructureNational_Security_and_Criminal_JusticeSecurity_and_Critical_InfrastructureCounter_Terrorism_Strategy_Policy means nothing. It was inter alia established to keep an eye on court caases involving terrorism.

The fact that little Johnnie's Department PM&C has a National Security Division http://www.pmc.gov.au/about_pmc/divisions/national-security/index.cfm with a brief including "Counter Terrorism and Law Enforcement" means that Johnnie knew nothing.

Therefore Keelty and Bugg are the designated scapegoats for this (attempted) electoral vote fixer.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 27 July 2007 5:58:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets see if we can keep it simple.

1. Attacks in Britain cause the police to ask Australia for support. A support that must be given.
2. The Dr is accused of being reckless. (this would ordinarily make a great australian anyway)
The question is was he reckless stupidly with ignorance or not ?
If it was with stupidity then he will be free and should be asked to stay.(Do we remember why menzies was called pig iron bob or not)
Before we blame any government for trying to save us from a possibility should we(including the good doctor) not also blame his cousins first and foremost.
FOR MU & Leigh
The term wog was a racial expression used at least by the early twenties to describe english immigrants.
Racism is not inherent ,it is over advertised. There is plenty of cross discrimination between immigrants without blaming non immigrants.
Sadly we are so politically correct that even comedy isnt funny anymore. Our press laps this stuff up unfortunately as the Dr should not have his nationality or immigration even mentioned. It is a simple question of the possible criminality of a man who had a one way ticket !
Simple isnt it.
Posted by hoboturkey, Friday, 27 July 2007 6:21:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's quite clear that the Magistrate who had allowed Dr Haneef bail, got it right. Mr Andrews, is looking quite a fool for having tried to defend the indefencible. When a Minister such as Mr Andrews tells us to be trusting, we now know that we must be quite skeptical.
Posted by ant, Friday, 27 July 2007 8:01:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,

Many of us are waiting for your response to FrankGol, posted Friday, 27 July 2007 1:17:15 PM

Why the delay?
Posted by davsab, Friday, 27 July 2007 9:54:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People, please don't ridicule Leigh for his national purity fetish and his unshakeable faith in the benevolence of the nation-state.

He didn't get the memo about the twentieth century.
Posted by Mercurius, Friday, 27 July 2007 10:14:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Each time I write something about the Haneef case, the situation changes. Still, it is nearly midnight, the beardless youth has gone to bed, and we might have a sensible discussion.

Does it help Australia's defences against terrorism that the procedures of the federal police and/or the DPP have been so poor? No, it does not. Is it helpful that they refuse to accept that there has been any incomeptence? No.

Does it help that Kevin Andrews accepted the police case, apparently without checking it against the evidence? No. Does his stubborness in sticking to his first decision in spite of the evidence help in the struggle to protect Australia against terrorism? No.

Does fostering an attitude that it does not matter who gets hurt, as long as the Government wins, help to protect us against terrorism? Surely not. In this case, Mick Keelty is to take the blame (again), and the DPP (unusually). They have, indeed, someting to answer for. But so do Andrews, and Howard, and Burke, and Rudd.

Is the law that permits the Immigration minister to refuse or take away a visa without due process (try reading sections 501, 501A, 502 ands 503 of the Immigration Act) help to protect Australia against terrorists? No. There are other sections which are capable of doing it; and the denial of due process only means that the Minister is protected from the consequences of his mistakes. Does keeping the Minister protected from criticism and correction help to protect Australia? No.
Posted by ozbib, Friday, 27 July 2007 11:42:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, you obviously do not have a clue what civil liberties organisations do. They all have web sites. Read, find out and be humbled.
Posted by ozbib, Friday, 27 July 2007 11:47:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What kind of government do we have that goes around making human mistakes when forced by expediency to have all the answers before the end result explodes and innocents are cut down walking to school, or to pick up the groceries, or driving the streets, or like those in the twin towers, simply going about their days work. Any government that errs on the side of the many innocent over the suspected terrorist should hang their collective heads in shame. The suspects rights should be held above all else. We can worry about the innocent deaths after the bomb goes off. We can always get more people through immigration but the poor terrorist must be protected. After all we could be next because, well, look what Hitler did. Ya, exactly. And Howard is into sweeping across Europe and gassing Jews in the name of racial purity. It's the only logical extension behind arresting Haneef. Howard won't stop until he has decimated human rights and all Australia is in his gulag. The Uber Howard is on the march flee to your bunkers.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 28 July 2007 12:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davsab,

Why on earth would I reply to Frankgol's post. He himself said that his post was a waste of time. I don't know how long you have been involved with OLO, but I told Frank a long time ago that I couldn't be bothered with his nonsense. I only looked at his post this time because you brought it to my attention.

Here's something else for the left wing drongos to disagree with:

The charges against Haneef have been dropped. Many people will be pleased. Many of the same people are already saying that he should not be deported (even though he was heading off without a return ticket, and may not have wanted to stay here anyway).

Of course, Haneef may have been found not guilty. But equally, he may have been found guilty.

Thanks to screeching commentators, both professional and amateur, who do their best to find Australia and it’s Government “guilty” of all sorts of imaginary offences against humanity, when they are merely going about their legal business, we will never know.

When the next terror suspect comes along, Government and its agencies might very well hesitate to act because they fear the criticism of the Australian Fifth Column which has worked very, very hard to discredit both the elected Government and its agencies in the Haneef case.

Australia has just become an easier mark for terrorism
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 28 July 2007 12:27:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mercurius, what good is an old memo from the last century. This is the twenty-first century. Do try to keep up. Nazism has been defeated, socialism has imploded, we've been to the moon and back, sent robots to mars, eradicated a couple of devastating diseases and never before
in the annals of human history has so much wealth been held by so many people. Our only real problem is with the self-loathers, and since they are dependent on us for their very existence, we shall be hearing from them continuously as they remind us of what a great failure our society is.
We should all, the world, be proud of the advances of the past 100 years, and not be as some, constantly pricking holes in the joy of progress in the name of that grand socialist utopia that never was. Nobody likes a buzz killer. Terrorist are buzz killers. Destroyers not
contributors. Not brave. Not heroic. They're ugly little people. Wasteful of positive opportunity.
Given time we resolve and evolve. Unfortunately we are stuck with those who demand from society rather than contribute. They have nothing for their society but insolent mockery. Scab pickers. They are forever talking of rights but never a word about privilege. For them rights are something owed, while privilege is something they take as a right hoping no one ever questions the difference. Paying the price is for someone else to shoulder. Something earned by the strength of character, honour and fortitude, and sacrifice of a past generation or to be payed for by some following generation. Theirs is the free ride that comes from expectation found in the thinking and labour of others. Mind your step. The door is ajar.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 28 July 2007 2:19:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
punter57,
Mate, you have chosen one of the draconian laws, your choice terrorism, certainly I can explain you will know that apart from the rules 5 posts in 24 hours also a limit of 2 posts per subject, unlike other drongo's here. Plus I have a life. Dr. Haneef is a prime example of Howard's way of ruling by fear.

This exercise has shown us how any one of us can be plucked out of obscurity held without charge treated like a terrorist then all charges dropped, some of us may not be so lucky if held, this is a violation of international human rights. This has been an exercise in showing those of us who oppose this draconian law that we could well be next.

Mind you, I don't expect anything to change under Rudd, what people see in him I don't know, you asked mate, I have told.
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 28 July 2007 4:14:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davsab, one thing you must say about Leigh: he's consistent.

Consistently dismisses any opinion that he disagrees with as 'nonsense' and never engages in evidence-based debate on the issues. He's a squib.

Consistently insults people he disagrees with by use of cheap labels: 'left wing drongos' and 'screeching commentators'. He dishes it out but can't take it.

Consistently refuses to accept a lawful decision he finds disagreeable: 'Haneef may have been found not guilty. But equally, he may have been found guilty.' He is pig-headed.

Consistently supports his Government right or wrong: 'they are merely going about their legal business'. He is blind to the many mistakes of the Howard Government.

Consistently libels critics of his Government: 'the Australian Fifth Column'. He would silence all dissent.

Consistently makes wild assertions about the state of the nation: 'Australia has just become an easier mark for terrorism.' He makes things up - like his hero.

Consistently reads everything on OLO while pretending he doesn't. He lies!
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 28 July 2007 4:15:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol,
Leigh who mate? I don't even bother reading his posts, he has nothing to contribute to a debate. At least I say what I feel, as you do, this bloke just repeats Liberal Party TV ad's.

Do yourself a favor and do what everyone else does just skip over his posts, it make for a better debate, all the very best mate.
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 28 July 2007 4:33:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditto Shonga.

Although, not quite.

I've trained myself to read Leigh's comments only after my coffee cup has been placed at a safe distance. It's a messy cleanup operation after you've laughed coffee all over the keyboard.
Posted by chainsmoker, Saturday, 28 July 2007 6:00:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The mechanistic thinking and unimaginative conclusions of this article are typical of someone who has been trained in legal studies and who carries proudly and aloft the banner of the civil libertarians. The latter as yet cannot see the great distinction between a crime committed and a crime prevented and the distinct ways and means that are needed to apprehend its felons in each case.

Everyone knows when a crime is committed. But no one knows when a crime is GOING to be committed. And it’s much easier to search and find the suspects of the former, but it’s by far more difficult to identify the suspects of the latter. And while it might be easy to catch a felon who committed a crime and bring him/her to justice with the existing laws, it’s almost impossible to apprehend and bring to justice someone who is PREPARING to commit a crime with the same laws. It’s like in medicine. While one can cure a known and an occurring disease with the current remedies of medical science, one cannot prevent a relatively UNKNOWN DEADLY disease from spreading with the same remedies and one has to resort to hard and drastic measures to stop it from happening. Likewise in the age of terror to prevent a terrorist action from occurring, one has to take drastic, if not draconian, measures against it, because the conventional existing laws are totally ineffective to stop it.

It’s because of this cerebral inability of civil libertarians to see the fundamental distinction between a crime committed and a crime prevented and the different “remedies” that apply in each case, that all their strictures and arguments against the incursions of governments to people’s civil liberties, are trite, irrelevant, and intellectually out of depth.

See:http://australiacalls.blogspot.com
Posted by Themistocles, Saturday, 28 July 2007 7:02:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets look at the chronology of what happened.

There were two terrorist acts in the UK.
The UK police checked who they had been in contact with.
They found that Haneef had family contacts and informed the AFP.

Fine so far.

The AFP checked out Haneef and others.
They interviewed many Doctors.
They found Haneef was about to leave the country and thought it was odd.

Fine so far.

They detain Haneef under the terrorism laws and question him.
Haneef answers all the questions.

Then the AFP decide that they will not ask for more time to question Haneef, time they were entitled to ask for. They charge him. Avoiding the question of bias that was to be heard the next day.

This is when it gets messy.

Despite the fabrication of evidence, and ignoring the record of interview, presented by the prosecution. The magistrate grants bail.

It now gets political. The national security group gets together and instruct Andrews to revoke his visa. Not to enable his deportation but to keep him locked up.

Political interference in the judicial process.

Gaping holes appear in the prosecution case, the person who shares a great grandfather with Haneef, is charged with a minor offence. The sim card turns up hundreds of miles away.

The prosecution case is so flawed the charges are withdrawn. Andrews decides that Haneef is not a threat and can live in our community under less stringent conditions than were originally granted by the magistrate when she first granted bail.

Do you disagree Leigh? Do you understand why this is so wrong?
Posted by ruawake, Saturday, 28 July 2007 7:14:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ruawake

I agree with your description.

BUT Haneef is Muslim. Aren't all terrorists (except Tamils, same diff) Muslims these days?

Right or wrong counterterrorism laws over the last 6 years have been written precisely to address the rise of Islamic terrorism. Its probably realistic they have been written this way, but a distorted mindset has crept in with them.

The Government relied on the new convention regarding terrorists (who are only Muslim in Australia) that Dr Haneef must be held till he is proven innocent.

At an early stage in the Haneef case Secret Evidence was mentioned. Phonetaps and informants spring to mind, but given the exhaustive search of Haneef's flat the Secret Evidence may centre on the strategic leak by somebody (AFP? DPP? probably a Minister's Office) concerning "A senior source confirmed yesterday that emails between Dr Haneef and his cousins, Kafeel and Dr Sabeel Ahmed, in Britain were now seen as possible evidence." http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22112617-5006301,00.html

If the AFP still wants to tender its Secret Evidence Haneef MAY have a case to answer. The AFP may has worked intensively over the last three weeks to prove Haneef's guilt but the lack of evidence and political pressures are indicating he's innocent.

If he'd been white and Christian the issues naturally would not have arisen nor been suspected. Suspected of terrorism till proven innocent for designated groups now seems the legal yardstick, of course.

Problem (for this Government) is the people found out too much about the legal defects of the Haneef case and the people spoke.

Problem for everyone is that in the course of a Government vote rigging case of crying wolf the AFP has been over-pressured and is now demoralised. The next example of terrorism in Australia may be real and explosive.

I think the Government shouldn't stuff around with the law for votes.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 29 July 2007 3:27:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plantagenet,
Makes one wonder what all the shouting "Hick's is innocent", "Hick's is innocent", was about. After the cry and hue we find David had been turning everyone he had ever met since year one and seeking profit. Now with Haneef, the same crew is shouting down the Howard government, anti-terrorism units, and the police again. All in the name of excessive use of power with out knowing the real story behind the media chatter. Perhaps. Just perhaps. If Haneef ever wants to get home to his wife and not gunned down as he steps off the plane. He will need the cover of being victimised by that cruel western democracy that goes around stripping folks of their human rights with out the slightest provocation. It's worked for the Palestinians. Not one of them is a terrorist and all are victims of Israeli hegemony. Then again, ask the Israeli to account for the massive numbers of suicide bombers that have exploded amongst their people and not mention Palestinians. Ask the Spanish about their terrorist experience and who have been victimised by Spanish justice. Ask the British. Ask the Indians. Ask the Pakistani, the Afghani, the Lebanese, the Egyptians, the Iranians, the Iraqi's, the Turkmenistan's, the Turkestan's, the Uzbekistan's, the Filipino's, The Algerians, the Ethiopians and the Sudanese. Etc. Etc.

For the rest I agree Pete. I don't know anything about Haneef. I can only say that if he has the slightest sense of what is right and what is wrong. That he won't be playing at silly buggers and will be fully cooperative in his investigation and answering the government with out reservation. If he is innocent he will be released and the investigation finished. Who knows what information he has to part with. The government does not "need" a terrorist, and no ranking government official wants to be the screw up that let a explosion go off and kill 1 person or 3000 or bring down any building on top of the citizenry. No government official wants to wear that. Definitively end of career to say the least.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 29 July 2007 5:28:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MANY DIMENSIONS to the Haneef case.

My opinion is this.

1/ The genuine fear of what he may have been contemplating, was persuasive enough to lead the AFP to seek 'all and any' means of restricting his movements while they investigated the situation.

2/ After the investigation looked a little dodgy, there might have been political influence to 'beat up' the situation as a kind of pre-election Tampa-II deal..(not that I personally disagreed with the way Tampa was handled)

3/ There may be information which cannot be revealed to the public which caused more intense scrutiny of Haneef.

Given my own experience with the AFP, I don't think there is a 'gung ho' attitude....they are more restrained than over zealous.
So, while it is difficult for Dr Haneef, he should understand, that even blind Nellie could be forgiven for suspecting he knew more than he was letting on about what happened in Glasgow, given his personal family connection.

CONCLUSION. The most we can say really, in the absence of full information, is that 'to the extent' Haneef may have been wrongly held or treated, then it is unacceptable.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 29 July 2007 9:26:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Way We Vote for Power?

Can we agree that 'power ought not to be used in an arbitrary or unreasonable fashion, by ignoring relevant considerations, for improper purpose, without complying with the required procedure, by acting under dictation, or in total disregard of constitutional principles'.

Like many, I am not in a position to defend Haneef or discredit the prosecution case against him for “recklessly” providing support to a terrorist organisation.

I am concerned about the merit of evidence being argued in the Haneef case, especially between the agencies of government departments.

As stated in this article "Australia, like other countries, has a right and power to defend itself against terrorist threats arising from both inside and outside.

And "The Australian Government has a duty under the Constitution as well as international law to protect civil liberties not only of its citizens, but also of non-citizens in some cases."

I am deeply suspect of the equivocal process in service techniques, the quality of communications that transpired between officals, which lead to the bypassing of due process.

I am appalled by the factors concerning the "Solitary confinements (to which Haneef has been subjected), harsh detention conditions".

I fear that any reckless use of the anti-terrorism laws may prove counter-productive in the longer-term, and especially where (it is agreed) "innocent incarceration provides a fertile ground for germinating the seeds of terrorism."

I wish for an Australian Government to show character in protecting the human rights not only of its citizens (like David Hicks) but also of those non-citizens who are living in Australia legally for legitimate reasons (like Dr Haneef).

Citizenship is at the core of issues surrounding tactical inter-relations of regional and national states, and the way that states may use their powers to arrest or detain citizens indefinitely, without appropriate charge.

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Sunday, 29 July 2007 12:06:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good to see reasoned comments from a decent lawyer, Themistocles. Your final paragraph sums up the flaws of the civil libertarians.

For the rest of you who like to pretend you don’t read my posts; pretend you dismiss them, I really wish you would do exactly as you claim to do. The only problem with that is that you don’t have the backbone or the ability to express your own opinions on any subject, having to, rather, lurk like rock spiders for someone else to express an original and sincere opinion so that you can have a go at it.

I don't care about your opinion of my opinions, so stop wasting your time. All you are doing is proving that (a) you don't have opions or, (b) you are not sure that your opinions will stand up to scrutiny or even, (c) that you have the ability to change other people's minds.

The only person using OLO of the left pursuasion who has any respect from me is Sneekepeete. The rest of you are nitwits and ratbags.

Make sure you are all there to wave Haneef off as he heads back to India, never to return to Australia.
Posted by Leigh, Sunday, 29 July 2007 12:20:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh says:

"The only person using OLO of the left pursuasion who has any respect from me is Sneekepeete. The rest of you are nitwits and ratbags."

Sneekepeete, I'm really sorry, mate. You didn't need that endorsement. My deepest condolences.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 29 July 2007 1:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/200000-to-tell-all-just-for-starters/2007/07/28/1185339327056.html

Yup. Poor Mr. Haneef. His wife will be wondering why she's not getting any attention after the lefty media coming hands n' knees.

I can't wait for Harry Freedman to recite Haneef's tales of torture and physical abuse at the hands of his all female watchers.

SNAP. Ohhh. Your a very naughty girl. I hope I can get another visa.
My wife doesn't understand me.

God, I love soap operas
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 29 July 2007 4:35:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay can someone explain why the pro "lockem up and throw away the key" mob is not concerned that the DPP and AFP managed to completely bollocks the case up?

I would have thought that being the law and order people that they are they would have been jumping up and down about incompetence putting our great nation at risk.

Or is it really a case of anything to stick it to the "lefties"?
Posted by James Purser, Sunday, 29 July 2007 4:52:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Haneef case clearly shows how tainted our laws are with political intervention.

The office of the federal Attorney General to should be completely independent of government.

Moreover, the office of national Attorney General should be held by an eminent and highly qualified member of the legal profession able to provide government with legal advice without it being tainted by party politics.

The pass the package / line of fire from Howard down to Attorney General Philip Ruddoch and then sideways to Andrews is there for all to see.

In this instance it was someone who was not an Australian but with a working visa.

No wonder he chose to fly home yesterday. The laws here provided him no protection at all.
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 29 July 2007 4:52:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having read Surya Deva’s article numerous times since I “fell” into this thread and having observed the dichotomy between ‘right and left’, ‘evil and good’, ‘neo-conservatism and socialism’, ‘Leigh and Frank’, ‘us and them’, etc - I have to say I completely agree with the author’s tenets.

Both sides of the “debate” have important points to make and it is frustrating to see how they can not come to some common ground – it is very divisive and points to further problems in our society. We seem to have lost our communication skills and respect for alternative points of view.

I don’t want to live in an ‘Orwellian’ state of ‘thought police’ or be encumbered by ‘draconian sedition laws,’ but the actions of ‘the powers that be’ and comments by some posters on this thread suggest that is indeed what is happening here – Haneef’s case is an example and unfortunately, we have probably stuffed up.

You may have noticed most of my OLO comments are to do with issues of global warming or climate change; I have some expertise in the area. However, I try to make the point that the problems we see in the world today can be solved if the protagonists converge to some common ground. Only then can we progress.

It is sad that power and control of one over another will stifle any chance of solving the world’s problems; be it the war on terrorism, “weapons of mass destruction or weather of mass destruction”.
Posted by davsab, Sunday, 29 July 2007 5:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Themistocles states: "It’s because of this cerebral inability of civil libertarians to see the fundamental distinction between a crime committed and a crime prevented and the different “remedies” that apply in each case, that all their strictures and arguments against the incursions of governments to people’s civil liberties, are trite, irrelevant, and intellectually out of depth."

Leigh then responds: "...Your final paragraph sums up the flaws of the civil libertarians."

It seems some have never heard of the saying "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile", or the phrase "Opening doors you can't close."

These laws will only ever get worse, until generations down the track, we won't just be a police state, we'll be a military state.

If this is what our government is doing before a terrorist attack, imagine what they'll do when an attack finally does occur. For example, just take a look at the "protections" the US enjoys. It's now even illegal for Americans to not put their real name to a webmail account! Given time, our children's children may be so "protected", they'll need protection from their own government. In fact, wouldn't it be interesting if they became "protected" to such an extent that they found themselves siding with those whom they were originally being "protected" from.

If these so-called "screechers", who believe in civil liberties weren't "screeching", we wouldn't have any rights left to "screech" about. In fact, this forum wouldn't even be here for us to be discussing this.

It's these basic points that render the opinions of the far-right on this issue null and void, and Themistocle's last paragraph intellectually out of depth.
Posted by John Simpson, Sunday, 29 July 2007 8:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, John Simpson. I think that Australia is at more risk of becoming a managed democracy, like Malaysia, than a despotism. But we are quite some way from that yet. For example, while the handling of the Haneef case has been very poor, ways have been found to provide him with some protection.

Andrews I think has shown himself misguided rather than corrupt; though how anyone could argue that Haneef’s rapid departure to India today is a reason for suspicion is beyond me. (Can anyone make sense of it, without adopting a conspiracy theory? The idea is so absurd, the conspirators would have to be demented.)

There were at least four bungles that emerge from the first police record of interview. The police thought Haneef’s reason for providing money to a relative—that the relative in turn was providing money to Haneef’s mother—was suspicious. They made no effort to find out if that was common or reasonable. But it is both. It's not new. I remember it being done more than a decade ago. It saves bank fees.

The police knew that Haneef had stayed in the same building as one of his criminal relatives. They had no reason to believe that the two had stayed at the same time. Nor did they find out that the building is run by an Indian charity; which explains why each of them would stay there.

The police thought that Haneef’s first departure was unduly hurried. Yet he had given them a good explanation.

The police took it that supplying something that was used in a terrorist attack is a crime. By itself, it isn’t.

In spite of these faults, Andrews still believes what he is told, and comes out with rubbish. What is wrong with the man?
Posted by ozbib, Sunday, 29 July 2007 10:55:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How can anybody believe anything that is stated publically by these lying rodents from our Commonwealth Govt.
Extract from the Australian.

Earlier, as Mr Andrews tried to defend his position, he found himself in more strife for misrepresenting the facts of the Haneef case in a morning television interview. Mr Andrews said Dr Haneef's arrest came as he left Australia on "the pretext" of wanting to see his newborn daughter, who had been born a month earlier. In fact, Haniya had been born six days before the arrest, Mr Andrews conceded later when issuing a transcript of his television interview
Posted by Young Dan, Monday, 30 July 2007 12:45:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There’s a lot of naivety about, isn’t there? John Simpson demonstrates his with his apparent belief that the left is looking after our liberties.

And, of course, only the dreadful right wingers form military governments!

While the majority of Australians continue to keep their heads stuck up their backsides, we are certainly at risk of losing democracy. We came close during the Fraser/Hawke/Keating years – kerbs put on what we could say and to whom we could say it; enforced multiculturalism; borders opened up to cultures totally apposed to our way of life; increase in Islam and on and on.

We already have activist judges who think they should be stepping in to sort out the mess made by politicians and complacent citizens. Given the contempt most people feel for our politicians, and the increasing activism of the extreme left that knows it will never gain power through the ballot box – the judiciary and complacency, not people whose personal opinions you don’t like or some right wing army, is where the danger for Australia lies
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 30 July 2007 8:15:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The laws are there to protect Australians against terrorists. At the time Dr Haneef had many reasons to suspect he was possibly linked to the other terrorists in the UK
1) he was related 2) he had contact with them 3) he was in the same profession and 4) from the same country. Maybe none of these reasons individually make him a suspect but together, in the eye of any reasonable person must at the very least make him a possible suspect. This is what counts, he was at the time a possible suspect. Thus he should be held and questioned. It does not matter at all that he is later found innocent.
What would all these people be saying if he was not held and actually let off a bomb somewhere?
The safety of Australians must come first.
Withold his visa. Give an Australia Dr a job. Surely there must be a few sick people in India who need a Dr.
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 30 July 2007 9:12:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the Surya Diva PART I

It is not at all relavent whether the he is innocent or guilty, or whether the evidence is good or bad. The whole point is that, due to the utter seriousness of the crimes that took place in the UK which very easily could have resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people (and only didn't due to their obvious stupidity and lack of technical skills despite being doctors), the Australian Federal Police did the right thing by detaining a highly probable connection (when one takes all the circumstantial evidence into account), and whether it pans out or not is a matter for our justice system which works better and fairer than most in the world, if one can even call some of them justice systems at all.

The authorities have done nothing wrong in this case. In fact, if they hadn't detained Dr Haneef before he got on the plane to India most probably the very same people would be also complaining about incompetence. I think that those who are against this case are from either of two camps:

(1) the Howard haters who have proven over the years that they are willing to back any horse no matter what it's character or beliefs or background just as long as that horse is running against the Howard horse. This was proven with Habib, Hicks, and the daily events of the left's alliance with racists, bigots and homophobes and even in some cases 911 supporters such as most of the Muslim leadership and many others from that community (If one wishes for proof of this if they have been on holiday for the past decade I will happily provide a long, long list of people and their crimes).

(2) the racist white or most often Anglo haters who are against anything and everything that looks white and seems to be proud of Anglo history. Usually these people are the Keysar Trads, Sheik Hilalis, Sheik Omrans, Walid Alee, Wassim Duherei of Hiz-but-Tahrir, George Megaloganis, and thousands of other Anglo hating racists.
Posted by White Warlock, Monday, 30 July 2007 9:40:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozzie, you make the same blunder that is so often repeated by the regular bloggers on this site; that any loss of civil liberties is justified if it might help to prevent a terrorist attack.

It is an obvious argument, but a bad one. People who defend liberties against police demands for more and more power are not unaware of it. Nor do they act in simple-minded belief that the threat of terrorist attacks is not real.

It is a bad argument, for the same reasons that arguing for a war purely on the basis that the war is for a just cause is invalid. To be just, wars have to be winnable, there must be no better, less harmful way of achieving the end, and the means has to be proportionate to the end, which means roughly that more harm is prevented by the war than is caused by it. And they must be conducted in a way that minimises the harm caused. Actions that kill and are not thus justified are war crimes. The Iraq war fails on most of these counts.

To justify an intrusion on liberties, you need more than a proof that life is more important than liberty. You need to show that there is no better way of going about it; that there is no way of preventing or responding to a terrorist attack which is less intrusive on liberties. The intrusion must be kept to what is necessary. There should be safeguards, consistent with the end of preventing terrorism, to prevent misuse. And there should be compensation for innocent victims.

Civil libertarians are not arguing that no intrusion on liberties is justified to forestall terrorists. They’ve argued that some of the powers are not needed; and that others are dangerous, and need safeguards.
Posted by ozbib, Monday, 30 July 2007 9:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Surya Diva PART II

The problem in a nutshell is that the standard of evidence is too high to be able to deal with events that occur in a Hobbsean warlike "state of nature", which is what the war with these racist terrorists is - civilized people who run on self-legislating morality and decency being confronted with gutter slime who are willing to brainwash little babies into agreeing with them because they are too scared to let thei so-called beliefs stand on their own merits.

Even though the courts could not find enough evidence to charge him, and he may have really known nothing about the attack by his cousins in the UK, the investigation was the only course of action considering all the circumstantial evidence. To be against the investigation is ludicrous. It means that you simply hate "Anglo man".

And to even speak about concepts such as human rights, international law etc, must be done within the context of the fact that these things aren't part of the fabric of soace, they don't just exist on their own, they exist only in this modern age and only in Western countries and only because (due to the rigourous identity shuffling process of the enlightenment and industrialization) the average Westerner has learned the true meaning of empathy, equality for all (not just for my pathetic little tribe), fairness, etc. This is why only Western nations have a massive immigration program that in Australia's case has resulted in demographic changes of more than 50%, and that only in Western nations people such as Mr Habib, Trad, Hilali and more can live here without being threatenned. In fact gangs of ethnic youth constantly attack and even kill Anglo kids.

It is these things which the terrorists are destroying, with help of so-called leftists. And quite frankly, Mr Diva, to not recognize that this investigation was a normal, non-sinister, necessary event, which by the way, came to a fair conclusion, is racist for a non-westerner. You are simply on his side because he is against us. What a sad, sorry creature.
Posted by White Warlock, Monday, 30 July 2007 10:01:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,
There is an old saying "it is better for people to think you are a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it" I'll probably pay the penalty for this, but Leigh you are a fool!
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 30 July 2007 12:18:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozbib

In reply, what do you think should have happened to Dr Hanef initially? In other words what should happen the next time something similar happens? I would be interested in what you think, without making any reference to what the facts exposed in the end.
What should the police do next time a person is fund in a simialr situation to Dr Haneef?

Thanks in advance.
Posted by ozzie, Monday, 30 July 2007 12:56:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you never read my posts, as you advised on Saturday 28th. July, why are you commenting on a post I made today? Did you have a vision that I posted and thought that you should comment? Or, are you a liar? Has to be one or the other, old son.

And what was that you were saying about fools
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 30 July 2007 1:33:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is an extordinary amount of igorance shown in comments on this
matter. The government has no part in the prosecution or police actions.

The only place where the government operates is in immigration matters.

A lot of noise is being made about the Immigration minister not
revealing everything he knows.

Hasn't anyone other than me thought that perhaps it is the British
police that have supplied the information and it is their decision if it
is to be kept confidential ?

What a carry on; the charges were dropped when it was discovered
that some important evidence was wrong and the immigration had held him
in the meantime until it was decided the charges were dropped.
What is improper with that ?

For heaven's sake wake up to yourselves, take a Bex and have a nice lie down.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 30 July 2007 2:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the ALP win the next election, there will be no more Haneefs, no more Hicks, no more crying over drug smugglers getting themselves hung ..and there will be no more civil libertarians because the whole lot of these sensational throw ups have been about getting John Howard out and Labor in.
With the ALP in power there will be open door immigration, then the end of the Australia as we know it.
Incidentally, the civil libertarians will be no loss, they never but never appear to stand up for an ordinary non muslim white Australian, a totally loathed breed to them.
Posted by mickijo, Monday, 30 July 2007 3:12:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With characteristic calm reasonableness and mountains of evidence, mickijo says:

"With the ALP in power there will be open door immigration, then the end of the Australia as we know it." (S)truth overboard!

He obviously doesn't know much about the respective roles of the ALP and the Coalition parties in the history of Australian immigration. Labor (traditionally the party of workers) has strenuously opposed immigration over the years while the right-wing parties (traditionally the party of big business) have encouraged it. As we speak, immigration is at an all-time high at a time when the Howard Government (using the rhetoric of an alleged skills shortage) is trying to cut wages and diminish the power of unions.

Mass migration frightens trade unions and workers because of fear of having their jobs usurped. Business owners and company managers relish mass migration because of the prospect of plentiful cheap labour and growth in the market of consumers. The economic argument for the old White Australia Policy was most strongly voiced by the ALP and the unions. It was the Coalition which began the process of dismantling iWhite Australia. And post-war mass migration (although initiated by the declining ALP in 1949) was stimulated by the Coalition throughout the 1950s and 60s and again in the second part of the 90s and on to today.

Coming closer to the present day, you will recall that it was the ALP which introduced mandatory detention of asylum seekers. And last week, when decency and principle were desperately needed, what did the ALP do about Dr Haneef? Agreed with Howard, Ruddock and Andrews.

mickijo ends with a feeble whimper: "the civil libertarians...never but never appear to stand up for an ordinary non muslim white Australian, a totally loathed breed to them".

I don't suppose Cornelia Rau and Vivien Alvarez Solon were exactly the sort of 'non muslim white Australian' mickijo had in mind? OK, what about journalists Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey?

More chip on the shoulder than chip in the brain.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 30 July 2007 4:48:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a very difficult task to protect the human rights of Australians while similtaneously taking those rights away with draconian laws.

What human right
Posted by polpak, Monday, 30 July 2007 4:53:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am glad we are free to post comments , including the comments of the ill informed and bigoted, and let's face it this issue has dragged out some real knuckle scrapers.

I am also glad that we are ruled by law and that those laws have their limits and can be applied equally to all. The idea of that is that it protects us from arbitrary and capricious acts by Ministers like Kevin Andrews.

It was unfortunate that Haneef was held on the basis of poor work by the AFP and DPP, and there should be an independant review of what went wrong so that we can improve things for the future.

Howard's end may be because he has failed to secure our nation. The Howard Government gave Dr Haneef the s.457 visa, if he is a person of interest why didn't they check that before he came here ? It is Howard and Co that are responsible for the DPP and AFP, the case falling over is not the fault of some poor sod in Brisbane. The law didn't fail it was those we elected to manage our affairs that have failed us.
Posted by westernred, Monday, 30 July 2007 6:39:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozbib,

"I think that Australia is at more risk of becoming a managed democracy, like Malaysia, than a despotism. But we are quite some way from that yet."

I agree. But I guess I can get a little carried away when there's an issue that I'm passionate about.

Leigh,

"And, of course, only the dreadful right wingers form military governments!"

I actually meant any distant future government - Left or Right (you may be surprised to find that I actually agree with your points about how the Left can also be a threat to our democracy). But after re-reading my post I can see how you've interpreted it that way. Perhaps I should be a little more clearer next time. It can be hard to narrow everything down into 350 words when your head is spinning with points to make - as I'm sure you understand.
Posted by John Simpson, Monday, 30 July 2007 6:56:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What occurred with Dr Haneef was an experiment in how far they could go under the guise of terrorism and sedition laws for outright political expedience. It was to desensitize the Australian public to the fact that they (the government) was actively seeking the acceptance of the removal of our God given rights. Our Laws are based on the Bible and under these Laws we are all accorded rights that make us all equal no matter what race colour or creed you happen to be.
Though my concern for his mental anguish was present I have to admit that I was primarily worried about our rights of the presumption of innocence were being attacked. The matter of guilty or innocence was secondary to his standing under the Law, after all this is now the second time (under to oversight of our government) that an individual was gaoled without trial or given recourse to appeal directly to those rights under the Law.

This isn't the end this is the begining of a slippery slide; I worry less about terrorism than I worry about our Feral (that was not miss spelled) Government.

Thank you Natasha and associates for standing on the wall BUT DON'T BLINK OR TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THEM , for while they aren't kissing babies they are busy stealing their lollipops.

Quote from an American of long ago " GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"
Posted by nickmihaleff, Monday, 30 July 2007 9:24:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nickmihaleff, good point.

Both fascism and communism have adopted such draconian sedition laws?

In what direction do you think we are headed?
Posted by davsab, Monday, 30 July 2007 9:59:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many people cringe at what I see coming but humour me and consider the formation of zones all over the globe IE the European Union, The North American Alliance (name not declared yet). With these alliances being adopted I see a one world government that will be totalitarian, wanting conformity but for the good of the whole (or is that the official line). This prerequisit for towing the (party line, sounds familiar to the old Soviet system) will be paramount for the system to work. Just look at the glimpse of the way they applied the anti-terror /sedition laws with dr Haneef and you can see the compliance observed by the majority of the people in Australia - please note I didn't say all Australians some still consider the shadows that are cast for tomorrow.
Tomorrow is what really worries me as I personally do not want this legacy for my children or their children it's far too dangerous.

But your question was what do I see, a system of repackaged despotism, rebadged and sold through the use of misdirection for mass consumption. Look at APEC and ask yourself why do so many protest? Some people dismiss it as simply rent-A-crowd but something is truly wrong here they meet behind closed doors and all that time the USA is spending the world into economic collapse. The Pentagon has been quoted that it cannot account for $2.3 TRILLION !
Yet the US dollar is still worth more than our dollar yet we are not spending the money of future generations. No something else is happening I feel we as a populas are being herded like sheep for the pen. My ancestors came out of the Soviet abuses, my Grandfather was shot in the leg crossing the border getting away so I am very uneasy about this and as I said previously I fear the government more than any terrorist.
Posted by nickmihaleff, Monday, 30 July 2007 10:35:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IS “SECRET INFORMATION?” BEING DANGLED – FOR ELECTION

Andrews has stated he may reveal the secret information (causing Haneef's visa removal) in the next 18 hours.

If so I'd guess it might relate to one or two things:

(1). More likely related to Haneef possibly fiddling the books (corruption) (common in many circles and) unrelated to terrorism. Yesterday's report http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Gold-Coast-Haneef-associate-suspended/2007/07/30/1185647823104.html :

A Gold Coast doctor (Dr Mohamed Ali) who worked alongside Haneef has been suspended from his job.

"A Queensland Health spokeswoman revealed director general Uschi Schreiber had suspended Dr Mohamed Ali with pay, after receiving information from Queensland Police...

[Haneef and Ali] were both recruited from Liverpool in England and sponsored on 457 work visas by Queensland Health and worked at the Gold Coast Hospital.

[this TIMING may be significant] The spokeswoman said Dr Ali was suspended on Friday evening, around the same time Dr Haneef was freed from Wolsten Correctional Centre as a terrorism charge against him was dropped."

- the Government was finding it too POLITICLY embarrassing to hold Haneef any longer even if it did want to try him or fine him for non terrorism related reasons

- if Ali was doing the same thing there has been an unequal Government response. By the Government orchestrating the timing and Haneef’s motivation it removed the likelihood of Haneef seeking his visa, merely being suspended with pay (like Ali) and remaining in the country.

Now Haneef has been removed there goes the Government’s POLITICAL PROBLEM.

(2) The other scenerio is that "A senior source confirmed yesterday that emails between Dr Haneef and his cousins, Kafeel and Dr Sabeel Ahmed, in Britain were now seen as possible evidence." http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22112617-5006301,00.html Such “evidence” may not relate at all to terrorism but for Andrews to remove Haneef’s visa.

All is mysterious. It will be even more interesting what political SPIN the Government places on the evidence.

I’d say DISCREDITTING Haneef, and by association Beattie and the Opposition equals more VOTES for Coalition.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 1:07:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank Gol, the two ladies in question Rau and Alveraz were simply excuses used by the "civil "libertarians to further their hatred of John Howard. You know it, we know it.
A columnist used the words "political antagonism' to explain the hostility behind all the bleeding heartism that is crippling this country with sheer divisiveness .
I am not sure that civil libertarian's hatred of Howard is not equalled by their hatred of Australia and all it stands for. Or what sort of tyranny they would replace our democracy with. I hope never to find out.
Posted by mickijo, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 4:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well after all that hullabaloo it wasn't John Howard that said the
SIM card was in the 4WD at Glascow Airport !

It was Scotland Yard, oh dear oh dear how embarressing.

What a lot of dick heads, raving on just being so impatient to have a
go at the government that they couldn't wait to see what the truth
might be.

Next time they are having a rant, just remember this incident then
go and take a Bex and have a nice lie down.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 4:35:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz

I think it is you who should have several bex.

If you can't see political fingerprints all over this, you must be what you call others.

There are two issues, the AFP investigation and the Visa. The AFP stuffed up. Andrews used it to try to gain political advantage - and he still is.

This has a way to go, Howard will have to face parliament next week. :)
Posted by ruawake, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 4:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mickijo, you claim that 'the two ladies in question Rau and Alveraz (sic) were simply excuses used by the "civil" libertarians to further their hatred of John Howard.'

So what are you saying: that it was the civil libertarians who illegally and brutishly incarcerated Cornelia Rau and deported Vivien Solon Alverez just to hate Howard some more?

I notice you're silent on the two white Australian male journalists, Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey, whose cause has been taken up by civil libertarians.

Listen to your own voice mickijo: '...'the hostility behind all the bleeding heartism that is crippling this country with sheer divisiveness'...'civil libertarian's hatred of Howard is... equalled by their hatred of Australia and all it stands for'.

Can you hear it? It sound hateful, divisive, extreme language to me. I wonder if you aren't creating a bit of a wreck in Australia all by yourself?

You speculate on'... what sort of tyranny [civil libertarians] would replace our democracy with. I hope never to find out'. That's the sort of perversity that's becoming everyday parlance in Australia where right wing leaders use words like 'choice' and 'freedom' when they mean the exact opposite. It's like saying that lambs plan to slaughter lions.

If Australia ever became a thorough-going autocratic state I hope there are enough civil libertarians left to campaign for your liberty to be restored. I'm sure those who are left would forgive your foolish misapprehension about who the real contemporary enemies of democray in times are. Rest assured, civil libertarians 'will stand up for an ordinary non muslim white Australian' like you, if your rights are being trampled on by an authoritarian government.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 5:19:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"That's the sort of perversity that's becoming everyday parlance in Australia where right wing leaders use words like 'choice' and 'freedom' when they mean the exact opposite."

FrankGol, I don't want to agree with your statement but I must. The only thing I would pick you up on is that it's not just the "right wing leaders" - it is the ideology of the fundamentalist right wing neo-liberal movement.

I would prefer a more centrist approach, even if to get dialog happening - and maybe this is where Rudd is coming from and why he is perceived as a better option for Australia's future.

The sad thing, Howard may well go down in history as being one of the most non-visionary PMs we have ever had overseeing demonstrable backward human rights issues, both here and abroad.

I can't help but think the 'new' sedition laws are but fascism in disguise.
Posted by davsab, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 5:49:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Ruawake, err no you are not.
Running for cover are we, oh well.
What did the AFP do ? Just gave the info from the poms to the
procecutors and left it to them. It appears to be the normal procedure.
So what has it got to do with Howard ?

It wasn't until the charges were dropped that the pollies came into the picture.
Until we know what was behind all that then it is pointles trying to
blame anybody. You are just doing what I said, looking for any
excuse to have a go.
Don't worry about facts, they just get in the way of a good rant.

It is not about the doctor is it ?
No its all about using the doctor to belt the government over the
head. The doctor may well be completely innocent but the people
who are taking advantage of him are not so innocent.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 5:53:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It wasn't until the charges were dropped that the pollies came into the picture."

Sorry Bazz, It was when 3 hours after a judge granted bail that the Liberal pollies became involved.

Kevin Andrews is a (insert preferred accusation) I have secret evidence that I can't tell you.

Not good enough. Everyone is accountable.
Posted by ruawake, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 6:25:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Ozbib PART I

"It is a bad argument, for the same reasons that arguing for a war purely on the basis that the war is for a just cause is invalid. To be just, wars have to be winnable, there must be no better, less harmful way of achieving the end, and the means has to be proportionate to the end, which means roughly that more harm is prevented by the war than is caused by it. And they must be conducted in a way that minimises the harm caused. Actions that kill and are not thus justified are war crimes. The Iraq war fails on most of these counts."

How is it a bad argument? You haven't provided any argument for this. You say that a war must be "winnable" and not simply for a "just cause", well this doesn't even make sense. On this logic you would have said that the war against the Japanese Imperialists and the Nazi Imperialists would have been unjust if it was seemingly unwinnable; not just simply because it is against evil. No, apparently it has to also be winnable.

Well, frankly, this sounds more like the accounts department than anything else.
Posted by Benjamin, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 7:37:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Ozbib PART II,

"To justify an intrusion on liberties, you need more than a proof that life is more important than liberty."
Again, pathetic. The very reason people argue against the Wars in Iraq and Afganhistan is because they wish to preserve the life that is there, apparently no matter what state they live in (such as slavery, ethic abuse, genocide even). Those who wanted to go into Iraq and Afganistan are of the belief that "liberty is more important than life" (the reverse of what you said), as it is better to be dead than half dead. If we are not wiling to fight for freedoms then we are nothing. Only cowards and the racist would say that anyone should be left to live under brutal dictators and with constant ethnic violence, or at least constant discrimination from whatever tribe is on top at the time.

Oh yes, and I like this "there should be compensation for innocent victims". Imagine justy how broke and therefore weak the ALlies would have been if they had to pay compensation to every innocent German or Japanese killed during wars that THEY started and for no sane reason (as has been proven since with both Germany and Japan doing things the way the U.S. asked them to do they are now as wealthy and good nations as pre-war natives of those nations could have imagined). I wonder what the middle east would be like if they similarly just allowed the U.S to do their job, rather than stifling it just because they are white people. They seem to prefer their own kind even if they are mass murderers.

Funny that, as your name suggest, you act as a "dribble" nullifier, that you yoiurself become the dribble. Or perhaps you always were the dribble. A bit of externalize and abject your problems onto others?
Posted by Benjamin, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 7:41:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozzie,

Apologies for the delay. I don’t get much time to look at OLO.

Part 1.

Like most of the civil libertarians I have encountered, I accept that the police need exceptional powers to deal with the threats of terrorist attack. But, like most of them, I think that the definition of ‘terrorist act’ in both Federal and State legislation is defective, leaving the freedom of many innocent people up to the arbitrary decision of the Federal Attorney General. If one of our fellow bloggers, for instance, were to belong to an organisation which supports the bombing of Dresden in the Second World War, for instance, he/she would be infringing the Criminal Code Act. The response of Philip Ruddock to such examples is that he would not permit a case on that kind to continue. We should not have to rely on the decency of a politician to avoid jail in such a case.

I agree with Terry O’Gorman’s comment: ‘While we support greater powers for the investigation of terrorist incidents, we've been warning for a long time that there are not enough checks and balances to protect against miscarriages of justice’

Yes, on the evidence presented so far, I think that the police should have investigated Dr. Haneef’s possible connection with the failed Glasgow bombing. On each of the applications for a warrant to detain him, they should have used the Queensland or Federal laws that require the Queensland Public Interest Monitor to be present when the application is heard. The NSW Terrorism (Police Powers) Act has a requirement that at all hearings after the first, the detainee or his/her lawyer should be present at the hearing. That should have been done. (Lawyers can be vetted for this kind of purpose, and given or denied a security clearance.)
Posted by ozbib, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 10:20:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozzie Part 2.

The AFP should have obtained advice about the material which they found suspicious, rather than assuming that their own judgement was sufficient. And they and the DPP’s representative should have read the relevant section of the Criminal Code before they laid charges.

Once a court decided that there was no danger to anyone in Haneef’s being released on bail, he should have been allowed to go free—provided he met the conditions the court laid down.

On comments about Howard hating.

The supposition that opponents of what the Federal Government is doing are based on hatred of Howard is remarkably short of evidence. In the hands of the commentariat, it appears to be an attempt to discourage people from looking at the arguments. On OLO, I’d have thought is pointless.

In any case, the civil liberties organisations spend a good deal of their time seeking changes to state government laws made by ALP governments as well as the federal one. Their members and their committees to my knowledge include members of the Liberal Parry, and some serving and past Liberal MPs. There is a wide range of political opinion, apart from the shared concern for rights and liberties: old fashioned conservatives with a belief in the organic nature of society, the interconnectedness of institutions and the danger of making changes without learning from history and looking at the consequences, moderate right wing liberals, and moderate left wing social democrat views predominate. Incidentally, the majority are not lawyers.

Davsab

The sedition laws are a different topic, which would require a thread of its own. If you have time, you might like to look at the summary of the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on those laws. It is available on their website.

Benjamin

I don’t have space to deal with you thoughtful comments tonight; and OLO permits only two posts in a 24-hour period. I expect that BoazDavid will be after you, since you attack what has been part of Christian morality for a dozen centuries.
Posted by ozbib, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 10:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My comment is brief to ozbib, I don't want changes within the Laws but rather that the new fly by night laws like the anti-terror and sedition laws STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION with regard to respecting our rights. The powers that the Ferals (not mis spelled) gave themselves have allowed abuse to be their discretion.

I came to this nation in 1967 because it was and is different, not now as it follows step by step the abuses of the US.

I said it before and here I go once again I don't fear terrorists but I do fear the world that allows this carry-on, it is un Australian and unacceptable; not the type of legacy I wish for my children and their children. You know when the governments practice absolute power then that power corrupts and we as voters have an obligation to turn the compost heap over. The declaration of independance says it best paraphrased that we that put them in power MUST remove them.

I don't seek the approval of others about what I know is right and justice isn't carried out for approval or acceptance is supposed to be a JUST system of fairness, Australia has always been about a fair go.

POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY, dna samples, movement monitoring through mobiles, wire tapping of telephone conversations (without warrants).
Posted by nickmihaleff, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 11:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks ozbib,

The ALRC site was very illuminating. My concerns are strengthened. Would appreciate your comments on "Bill of Rights" thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6176

Cheers
Posted by davsab, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 10:55:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whatever happened to the privileges of good citizenship and assisting the government with their inquiries? Why the promotion of the Us verses Them mentality from these individuals consumed with the rights of suspected criminals. The same people whinging about Haneef's rights and why wasn't he roaming the streets while under suspicion, are the same people who have petitioned the government to arrest criminals and have them off the streets, courts hearing or no. It's not mistreatment to be held for questioning. It's not mistreatment to be found innocent of any suspicion. It's not mistreatment to have a visa revoked for some other incidental misbehavior. And it's not mistreatment to be allowed to leave of your own free will before any deportation order.
I'm not afraid of terrorism either. I'm afraid of ill intention in the name of civil rights to weaken my nations ability to investigate each and every accusation whether or not it is proved unfounded after such investigation. The idea that any western democracy can exercise[s] absolute power is nonsensical and ignorant of the multi layering of institutions that make up government in a democracy. Fear mongering as blatant inflammatory conjecture of "what's happening is a conspiracy to remove our rights".
You have the government you wanted and built up over the last 40 odd years of socialist ideology and government knows best. And that ever expanding and influential and intrusive government we have today. It's thanks to you ceaseless whingers and government crying socialist who didn't want the responsibility for your own decisions or to put any effort into your world but collect victims, and cry your 'feelings' are equal to intelligent reasoning and champion deconstructionist arguments to tear at the world you created by fostering a dependency on government through political policy and social/cultural management.
Don't blame the government for answering your every beck and call to responsibility. They are just not going to get it right each and every time as you demand more and more that they take responsibility for your life.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 12:01:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank gol, I find the civil Libertarians are extremely selective in choosing whom they may stand up for. It is usually someone they can use to get at the government. Otherwise why were you not up on your hind legs howling when Sheik Hilali and his type were insulting, offending and encouraging rape? Why are you not in full cry after those who abuse Aboriginal women and children in the worst ways?
Not a whisper from you when the innocent were bombed twice in Bali?
You certainly pick your targets but you leave many Australians feeling revolted at your ideas of 'civil rights'.
Posted by mickijo, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 3:51:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs, are you seriously accusing the civil rights groups of embarking upon the "Us versus Them" tactic? What planet have you been on for the last 10 years, while Howard and his thugs have been demonising anybody convenient to demonise? Christ, go ahead and debate the worth and application of terror laws, but please don't make crap up.

mickijo, to the extent your post makes any sense, you are substantially wrong. Most civil rights groups are extremely non-selective in whom they defend. They are defending principles, not people. And your reference to the Bali bombings makes absolutely no sense. I know no one who wasn't horrified by those bombings. I know no one who didn't want to see the perpetrators punished, and sincerely wanted to consider ways to stop it happening again. So what, exactly, is your point?
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 4:28:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point is Bushbasher that in the cases I mentioned plus the drug smuggler cases ,civil libertarians are conspicuous by their silence,their absence.
But get a chance to demonise[your word] the Howard government, you are way up there and singing loudly.
It is very obvious and we see it for the hypocracy it is.
Posted by mickijo, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 5:23:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mickijo, you can refer to Bali and the drug smuggler cases all you want, but unless you tell me WHY you refer to them, I won't know how to respond. Civil liberty groups deal with civil liberty issues. Tell me what the civil liberty issues are in these cases, what you wanted the civil liberties groups to say, and then I can respond.

On hypocrisy, I don't care much if you can't spell the word, but you should probably look up what it means.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 5:40:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would be surprised if civil libertarians criticised private citizens, I would think by definition a civil libertarian is someone who is interested in protecting individuals from the power of the state and is most likely to be a critic of any perceived or actual abuse of state power.
Posted by westernred, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 5:55:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mickijo

You say 'the civil Libertarians are extremely selective in choosing whom they may stand up for...Otherwise why were you not up on your hind legs howling when Sheik Hilali and his type were insulting, offending and encouraging rape? Why are you not in full cry after those who abuse Aboriginal women and children in the worst ways? Not a whisper from you when the innocent were bombed twice in Bali?'

How would you know what protests I and others you label as "civil libertarians" make or what actions we took on those (or any other) occasions? You are just so spectacularly wrong. But actual evidence is if no interest to you, obviously.

bushbasher puts it well when he says: 'Most civil rights groups are extremely non-selective in whom they defend. They are defending principles, not people. And your reference to the Bali bombings makes absolutely no sense. I know no one who wasn't horrified by those bombings. I know no one who didn't want to see the perpetrators punished, and sincerely wanted to consider ways to stop it happening again. So what, exactly, is your point?'

You then weakly reply: 'The point is Bushbasher that in the cases I mentioned plus the drug smuggler cases ,civil libertarians are conspicuous by their silence,their absence.
But get a chance to demonise [your word] the Howard government, you are way up there and singing loudly. It is very obvious and we see it for the hypocracy it is.'

Do you know the meaning of 'civil liberties' or is it just another phrase you heard somewhere and thought to throw it in - like the 'left wing socialism' that you think dominates our schools?

I think bushbasher is right - go and look up the meaning of hypocrisy. And while you're at it see if you can find out what civil liberties are (oh, and you might as well do left wing socialism as well - it might be different from civil libertarianism).
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 6:13:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting to see how well the Labor party has avoided the wedge on this issue.

We see people attacking civil libertarians and Howard haters, but not the intended victims.

Kevin Andrews keeps blowing the dog whistle, but only digs himself into a bigger hole.

Costello must be fuming, this was meant to be his week with the APEC finance ministers meeting.

How come everything Kevin Andrews touches turns to brown smelly stuff.
Posted by ruawake, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 6:46:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs sees no harm in what this government is doing , well why does this government need to enter private residence without a warrant, you obviously do not think that having checks and balances to keep the criminals in high office on a path that would keep an eye on them. No I don't agree with such a naive belief that what the issuing of thinly veiled ID cards linked to data bases with biometric information starting with your photo but now they will have power to take your DNA place it on that same database. Then we are going to allow them to use mobile to triangulate you exact position again without a warrant; I am aware that ASIO has carried these actions for years but to me that is an abuse of office.
Before the belly aching starts that it isn't an ID card and what's the matter with ID cards they will keep us safe from terrorsits someone needs to explain how it will stop anyone. The 911 hijackers flew under their own IDs, please explain how I am really wanting to hear this.

The greatest concern to me is detention without any appeal, I know a lot of naive people don't see anything wrong here but I do.
You speak about helping the government with their enquiries, well to that there is no problem as long as they are following rules but at present they make the rules up along the way and if someone is getting away they change the rules yet again, IE go for the VISA. If Keelty has proof then the DPP would have acted but the proof is in the pudding they had nothing.
Then back to checks and balances, you think the leaders we have now are to be trusted look at the lies to enter the war in IRAQ, where are the WMD's please don't blame the intellegence agencies they couldn't lie straight in bed.

No I don't trust Howard they lied and continue to lie, whatever happened to statesmen ? You want me to trust this lot.
Posted by nickmihaleff, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 8:03:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nickmihaleff, the point is that you have this governmental attitude thanks to people like bushbasher who wanted governmental expansion into every facet of life. Unfettered socialism to salve their guilty conscience for being white, successful and in power. I don't like it. Never did. Hundreds of thousands don't like it but, it is part of the institutionalisation of government into the affairs of society brought about by the Labour and Liberal Parties thanks to Unionist, "government knows best" talkers and citizens wanting government to take responsibility for their lives rather than themselves manage that burden. To blame Howard for what has become entrenched in the public and inter-government psyche since the 1960's isn't just stupid. It's partisan politics at it's worst coming from the left for the result of their political design. Now that they have been successful in ensuring massive government it's all Howard's fault and a right-wing conspiracy to remove our civil liberties. Well son you might buy that crap but our civil liberties were given up whole heartedly by the socialist. It's the keystone in socialism. The Right, if such a thing exist in Australia, have been arguing for smaller government and less intrusion from day one. Where were these so called civil libertarians when government went unionised, city employees went unionised, police went unionised, hospitals went unionised, teachers went unionised. Etc.,etc. You can not justly play the blame game unless your willing to accept your responsibility in some small part for the accumulated events of yesterday. The only time anything comes out of the blue, is if you haven't been paying attention when you left it up to someone else to manage your affairs.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 2 August 2007 12:14:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Ruawake,
Yes of course you are correct it was after the bail
granting that the minister got into the act.

However things change quickly and it now seems that the minister acted
properly in cancelling the visa.
However to try and paint this as some sort of government conspirosey is
just plain silly.
Nothing has indicated that the AFP acted improperly.

Of course you could argue that SBS is part of the conspirosey also.
It will probably some time before it all comes out into daylight.

I can quite believe that Dr Haneff was only on fringes of a group that
was involved in illegal planning and may not have been aware of what
they were up to.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 2 August 2007 7:55:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you aqvarivs for your comments, though I am confused as to when I abrogated my responsibility over to government. I look after my family, I raise objections at all deaf ears in government and I emphasize they only listen (without any intent to act) at elections.

At that point I say that if unions didn't exist then the Coalition of owners of businesses and government would exploit everyone and it would only be a short period of time until we would see kids climbing underneath working machinery (weaving looms) as they did in the 1800's.

Politicians seem to spend a hell of a lot of time demonising unions but they are a check to put a balance on unfettered powers. No I don't believe the spewing lies that inflation is caused by wages. That is a blatant lie because the greatest slices are taken at the top, not for their own hard work but rather the sweat of others paid a minimum wage.

This conversation is opening another injustice.
Posted by nickmihaleff, Thursday, 2 August 2007 8:11:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, yes. If it wasn't for the benefice of Unions we would all be at the mercy of a Dickensian oppression of the masses by those who supply our employment rather than the ever necessary condition of work place grievance perpetuated by the almighty Union as they require more and more to pay for their ever swelling ranks. Nothing would have changed since 1790. Lets not consider their infiltration into government and the role they play in expanding the size and influence across public services. Oh, no. Lets not look too deep into the face of reality. Let's just blame the figureheads. At least then we're not responsible. Where's my Union rep? I want my rights. Oh, here comes the Police Union now to tell me my rights. John Howard you bastard. I'm being oppressed and it's not my fault. I only have good thoughts. Why me. Why me.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 3 August 2007 12:41:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes ok aqvarivs enough of criticsm what about your solutions you seem to blame pretty much everyone except yourself and the government. What the is the solution to a balanced society, how in your opinion does this mess that you believe is my fault and the fault of the union but I believe its the greedy abusers of position sitting manipulating their office or position? IE the APEC circus.

I am still unmoved but interested in finding out where the checks and balances should be placed and please don't tell I need protection I take care of myself.
Posted by nickmihaleff, Friday, 3 August 2007 5:03:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nick, If you take care of yourself- in the full sense of that idea; as being a responsible, self actualised, independent and productive contributor to your society; then You and I are not at odds. I spend 12 hour a day five days a week educating and arming individuals with the tools necessary to become self-actualising independent contributors to their society. I don't work for the government. My great nemesis is defeating the institutionalisation of governmental dependency. Do what I and others do. Work to see that each and every citizen by right of existence stands as an equal on their own two feet and if they should fail, rearm them, re-educate them, give them a hand up so they once again can look their fellow citizen in the eye as an equal and not live valueless, immaterial, unnecessary parasitic lives. (these are not my words but how people feel when they are sidelined and marginalised by our system of social welfare.) The more we do as private citizens the less we rely on the institution of government, the more government becomes redundant. The more government becomes redundant, the sooner we can reduce that institutional dependency and father an equality of citizenship through active citizenship. And reduce the size and influence of government in our daily affairs. We have given away too much actual freedom and actual right to not be involved in the decision making process of our own society and nation. The government hasn't done anything other than respond to our demands for it to hold the responsibility for our lives. Bit too late to be blaming some stooge who said 'pick me and I'll take care of that for you'. There is always someone waiting to take care of something for you, but at what cost. :-)
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 3 August 2007 6:04:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"people like bushbasher"? people like me are suggesting a "right-wing conspiracy to remove our civil rights"? aqvarivs, you're not arguing, you're ranting.

There is nothing conspiratorial about the attack on civil liberties, and no one is claiming there is. You simply need to read the public comments of those intent on amending our laws. The decline in civil liberties is a demonstrable legal fact. You may argue that concerns over terrorism make this decline wise, or even essential. But to deny its existence is simply to deny reality.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 3 August 2007 8:11:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My greatest concern in this whole, sorry affair is the total silence of the Labor party. Many raised their voice in the defence of Dr Haneef's (and our) rights, but nothing was heard from the Labour party. Only the Greens and Democrats had the guts to openly protest.

I am concerned, because it means that voting Labour at the next elections is unlikely to bring about any change in that area. And since we are condemned to be governed by 2 parties only, voting Greens or Democrats isn't going to help either.

Sad, really.
Posted by CitizenK, Friday, 3 August 2007 1:18:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,
I'm neither a liar or a reader of your posts. I learned early in my involement in this place that you contributed absolutely nothing to rational debate, as such anything you write is drivel.

Which is why I give others the advice I use and don't be bothered reading your tripe.
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 4 August 2007 12:52:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mickijo, if you are looking for an organisation which supports rights and goes beyond civil liberties, you might join Amnesty International Australia. It’s most recent ‘Human Rights Defender’ calls for its members to write letters to Laos concerning the Hmong, to Canada concerning Anishinaabe, to Vietnam concerning Bui Thi Kim Thanh, to Iran concerning Sayed Hossein Kazemeyni, to the Congo concerning Pascal Kabungulu Kibemi, to Azerbaijan concerning Dimitri Pavlov and his fellows, and has articles on Sri Lanka, Egypt and Dafur.

If you are really concerned, you could join its urgent action network, and add your support to those who try and save the lives of people who are threatened. Recent campaigns have included supporting people in Iran, Mexico, Guatemala, the United States, China, Columbia, Eritrea, Indonesia, the Bahamas, Haiti, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Venezuela, and the Yemen amongst others. It also has a long and distinguished record of organising world opposition to terrorist organisations.

Is that widespread enough for you? Australian civil liberties organisations may not struggle against injustice everywhere. That is not their function. But that is not so say that members do not.

Benjamin, I am sorry not to have replied to you before now. I used the just war principles as the start of my argument, on the assumption that they are well known and more or less common sense. But common sense can be and often is wrong; so let me start a defence of them, and thus perhaps to show you their relevance to the views that I was criticising—the notion that it is obvious that absolutely any attack on our liberties is permissible if it protects us from terrorism.

You make the first part of my case for me. Yes, it is not obvious that saving life is more important than protecting freedom. To your Iraq example, I would add the English Civil War, the Second World War, the rebellions of 1848, the French revolution (at least to start with) the Spanish Civil War and the risorgiamento. In each case many of the participants were prepared to lose their lives for freedom.
Posted by ozbib, Saturday, 4 August 2007 8:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbasher, there is no attack upon your human rights. Your hyperventilating because Haneef is safely home in Pakistan after a 30 day investigation on the grounds of having terrorist connections and other non-disclosed information passed on by British Intelligence. Your not making any rational sense blathering away with your thumb pressing hard on the alarm button. Cam yerself laddie and pick up your communist manifesto. Y'know that always relaxes ya. Come on now. Deep breaths. let's chant it together. Mao, um-tiddy, Mao, Mao. There's a good fellow.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 5 August 2007 8:53:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs, what is the point of that abusive and presumptuous post? you don't want to address my arguments? fine. but, you know nothing about me. what can be more absurd than your trashing of some imaginary communist foe, a bushbasher which exists only in your mind?

i don't see what you're doing amounts to more than masturbation. it may be fun for you, but i doubt that anybody else really wants to watch.

i have better things to do. i won't bother you, or bother with you, further.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 5 August 2007 4:36:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That would be best bushbasher if you can dish it but can't take it. Considering your first post to this thread was to pounce on my post calling it crap and made up while offering nothing to the conversation
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 5 August 2007 5:45:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, aqvarivs, on the one hand, I criticise your claim and then summarise your claim as "crap". On the other hand, you refuse to argue against any criticism of your posts, and instead go off on wild and totally unsubstantiated fantasies about who I am and what I, and "people like bushbasher", believe. And you regard this as equivalent, just the dishing and the taking?

The fact that you can be so obtuse is exactly the reason why trying to argue with you is futile. Maybe you can reason, but in fact you don't. You simply obfuscate and slur, which is pointless and boring.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 6 August 2007 12:24:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbasher, accusation is not criticism and I have no wish to be decent with individuals who suggest that their accusations are polite commentary. Your introduction to me was not polite commentary or inquisitive conversation. It was punk and had nothing to do with my previous post.
"aqvarivs, are you seriously accusing the civil rights groups of embarking upon the "Us versus Them" tactic? What planet have you been on for the last 10 years, while Howard and his thugs have been demonising anybody convenient to demonise? Christ, go ahead and debate the worth and application of terror laws, but please don't make crap up."

my post had nothing to do with civil rights groups. Nothing I wrote in any way relates to that attack. You got what you asked for. Or you would have used better style. Misrepresenting what I did post to give yourself justification to attack my entry is not clever argument. It gets you a kick in the literary nuts.

If you want reasoned argument you must first provide a counter argument not "what? Are you stupid." intermingled with Howard bashing.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 6 August 2007 5:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs, it is true that you didn't refer to "civil rights groups". You referred to "the promotion of the Us versus Them mentality from these people consumed with the rights of suspected criminals". Was I insufficiently accurate in the category of people you were describing? Possibly. But I think you're belatedly splitting hairs to avoid the real issue I raised, which is who does actually make use of the Us versus Them tactic. In this context, raising Howard and his Government is not bashing, but a valid comparison to make. I'm sorry if you think my posts added nothing: others - I guess "people like bushbasher" - seem to disagree.

Regarding the "decent" treatment of me, I couldn't care less. But you're not treating me at all. You're treating a fantasy in your own mind. Again, why you think anybody but yourself might find this valuable or entertaining simply escapes me.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 6 August 2007 7:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.andrewsmustresign.com/
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 3:12:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy