The Forum > Article Comments > Defining David Hicks > Comments
Defining David Hicks : Comments
By Neil James, published 9/6/2006Releasing David Hicks is not as easy and straightforward as it seems.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Page 23
- 24
-
- All
Natasha Stott-Despoija condemned Howard for passing judgement on Hicks before he has been found guilty of anything.
I rarely agree with Stott-Despoija but this time she is dead right, and Howard was grossly out of place.
It is a fundamental tenet of Australian law and indeed of democracy to treat people as innocent until proven guilty or shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This tenet is very highly compromised a lot of the time, but it is surely the duty of our Prime Minister to uphold it. He needs to be neutral with respect to Hicks, until guilt or innocence has been shown in a court of law.
And he must make sure that his strong negative leanings towards Hicks don’t lead to him not pushing as hard as he can for a trial to be held as soon as possible. The situation of very long detention without charge and then further very long detention without a trial is so grossly antidemocratic that Howard should be literally shoving it down Bush’s neck by now that the issue must be resolved as soon as possible.