Thank you Ellen Goodman for crystallising some of the key isssues of principle in this scandalous case.

The separation of powers, the liberty of the person, the presumption of innocence, the onus of proof, the right to know the allegations against you and the right to be heard in your defence - all of these were jeopardised in this instance (and may still be if the Government wins the appeal).

I think you summed up this case very clearly: "... the unscrupulous use of a matter involving a person’s personal liberty for propaganda purposes."

This case demonstrates that when it comes to safeguarding our democracy, it is this Government not Dr Haneef who represents the real threat.

The only way to resolve this abuse is for two things to happen - 1. A bill of rights and 2. A bill of government that would limit the government to certain areas of action. Under Howard their has been a systmatic centralisation of Power -for a liberal he is worse than a classic socialist . And his latest states bashing with him arguing for more power to Canberra should be sending danger signals to us all about the accumulation of power . The government needs to be limited

From my view ,if the states,certainly the one I live in, are dysfunctional and there is suffering that should never be allowed, then the Federal government should have the responsibility of stepping in and putting wrongs to right.
The Australian people should have the right to good health care, protection from crime and the right to a decent education. The poorest of the population must have the knowledge that that their protection is paramount.
And that protection certainly should extend to the safety from terrorism. In view of the Australian deaths twice in Bali and other terrorist action globally, it is far better to be on the side of caution than having any regard for bleeding heart crocodile tears.

The author and Howard haters ignore that Haneef lied even to the hospital that he was working for in order to get a job. Why don't the civil libertarians back someone who tells the truth. First they back someone who takes up arms against Australians and now someone who lies to get here not to mention his connections with bombers. No wonder many don't trust our lawyers, lecturers or judges.

Runner says (and nary a blush):

"The author and Howard haters ignore that Haneef lied even to the hospital that he was working for in order to get a job."

Tell you what Runner: I'll accept your position if you can look us all staright in the eye and tell us you didn't vote for John Howard knowing he lied "in order to get a job".

Runner then asks: "Why don't the civil libertarians back someone who tells the truth"? And he manages to keep a straight face - even while images of Never-ever GST, children overboard and weapons of mass destruction pollute the ether.

Ah the hypocrisy of the right!

FrankGol,

I happen not to be as suspicious of John Howard as you. I am sure that every man on earth has told a lie. By nature we are all prone to exaggerate and tell half truths. Jesus Christ is the only person who lived who has never lied.

You seem to conveniently ignore that Mr Howard went to the election clearly outlining his plan for the GST. You also ignore that both the Labour party and the United Nations believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Sure they were proved wrong but to somehow suggest Mr Beasley would not of supported the US is totally dishonest.

Now back to the article.
My point is that I do not think that a person who has links to terrorism and who lied to get to Australia is the sort of character we want in this nation

I'm sorry, at what point did Haneef lie to the QLD Health Department to get his job? There has been no accusation that he did anything like that.

The other doctor was the one who fluffed his CV, not Haneef.

I have read the reported court case carefully.

There is no suggestion that Dr Haneef misrepresented his qualifications for the position that he accepted at the Gold Coast hospital.

ellen goodman

Are there no sick people in India who need a doctor?

Is that why Haneef wants to come here.

FRANKGOL... I noted your comments about my 'unethical' post.. in another thread. I disagree that it was unethical... I gave my point of view, so why was it unethical ?

Here is food for thought... it has a connection to the Haneef case, though indirectly, I'd be interested in your assessment of this material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDiC6KVBZUk "We will rule the world"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mC66AiT-DI "Islam will rule the world"

In English, a muslim youth leaders says

"You will TAKE OVER UK, you will TAKE OVER USA, you will TAKE OVER EUROPE" etc...

Now..if these were just some crackpot marginal idiots we would not think twice about it.. but it is a theme coming from all quarters.

Haneef is just a small speck of dust on tooth on a gear of a big machine, but given the extreme nature of the material presented above, which is from Arab TV..... it is clear that our national security agents and the AFP must leave no stone unturned.

The biggest danger to our security is not any Islamic threat in itself, but a stupid and naive clinging to the outmoded idea of human rights in a time of actual war. (i.e. now)

When I watched Greg Barns, Rob Starry and company attacking the police evidence at the committal hearing for the 13 melbourne terrorism suspects, I could not believe my eyes/ears.. they were not in the slightest bit interested in what the evidence was saying, they were ONLY interested in finding a technical or procedural loophole by which to discredit the evidence as it stood.. and they did it all with straight faces.

Now..to my mind this is tantamount to treachery.

John Howard is a hypocrite.

Any man who wears a 'bullet proof' vest for his own protection and then denies the same protection to a service station attendant etc who is in the front line, so to speak, is an out and out hypocrite.

foxy dude is a proto-democrat. i wish there were more.

oz has never had civil liberties, except in the same way sheep in a paddock have. now the 'graziers' are getting tougher, a consequence of globalization: the pollies are beginning to realize their only limits of power are tradition, not law. it is becoming clear to them that they can do a lot more with their power to enhance and secure their position.

traditions are malleable, and no protection to individuals who make themselves inconvenient to government.

Fundamentalism through centeralised power making is unfortunately a dangerous reproduction of political history being repeated.

As we experience one revolution it is time for another no matter how converative you are.

To pick up from Foxydude. A sure way to help resolve abuse is for two things to happen;

1. An Australian Bill of Rights NOW?

2. A bill of government that would restrict the making of a persons government to certain areas of leadership pro-action.

Under Howard we are experiencing a systmatic centralisation of Power and for a "liberal" he is worse than his opposite; the "thumb-nailed" classic socialist .

Australia is at a turning point and must consider its own civic national terms of identity. I agree that we ought to talk directly to Canberra concerning the known danger signals on the 'demise of centeralisation and the accumulation of power'.

Is this something to learn by living in Australian as part of our history for 2007 .

http://www.miacat.com/

BOAZ_David asks why I said his post on another thread was unethical. (Why doesn’t he ask me on that thread?) Here goes:

1. He deliberately tried to distract attention away from child sexual abuse by the clergy.
2. He deliberately misrepresented the author by falsely claiming that she suggested child sexual abuse was just a ‘Church’ problem.
3. Without warrant, he accused the author of being deliberately and maliciously 'anti God'.
4. He falsely accused the author of not caring about the victims of child abuse.
5. He falsely accused the author of deliberately attacking the clergy so that some ideology (David mentioned Marxism) could be given an advantage.

Finally, I noted that David himself showed no concern for children who were sexually abused (whether by clergy or anyone else). Nor did he offer any insights as to why so many clergy sexually abused children, what that meant to the children and why the churches so often defended their employees instead of the children.

I expect no reply from David.

Now to his contribution to this thread.

I examined the material David linked us to. I saw and heard some apparent rantings by apparent extremists (my Arabic is non-existent and I don’t trust the translations). But I found no connection to the Haneef case.

I don’t accept that these rantings represent “…a theme coming from all quarters”. Most Muslims reject such twaddle.

I find David's claim that, “The biggest danger to our security is not any Islamic threat in itself, but a stupid and naive clinging to the outmoded idea of human rights in a time of actual war (i.e. now)” to be conceptually vacuous, self-contradictory and antithetical to democracy.

The allegation that the conduct of Greg Barns, Rob Starry and company at the committal hearing for the 13 Melbourne terrorism suspects, “is tantamount to treachery” is a claim without substance or merit. Indeed, the claim is extremist and authoritarian (if taken seriously).

To paraphrase a great American leader, people like David who are so willing to trade off democratic rights in the name of security don’t deserve either.

A bill of rights will remove more power from 'the people' than it will give.
Most of us view the Justice of this country with less than a complimentary eye. Giving it more power would be quite stupid.
The "children overboard" is still waved when the bleating hearts have nothing more substantial to wave. There WERE children in the water when one of the people smuggler's boats was mysteriously sinking.
The "Tampa" was hijacked by the "refugees" threatening to throw themselves[and the women and kids] overboard.
Come on you ideologically twisted lot, think up something NEW, the old ,old silliness is so damned tedious.

Hi Frank....well I do appreciate your passion here.. I know ur alive :)

On the Clergy thread, I didn't 'claim' Amanda was a Marxist, I raised it as a question. I then developed that idea a bit further.

On this one, you claim 'Most' Muslims reject the rants of wingding extremists, well.. I didn't see too many in the various audiences who looks unreceptive to those rants.. surely if you are honest, you must agree.
The only major difference is...'context'.. country.. those rants are indicative of how some Muslims in POWER will act.. Now..the one who said in ENGLISH 'We will Rule UK' etc.. should have been plain enough. You don't trust the translations of the others ? Well, I understand enough Arabic (because of it forming many Malay words) to agree with the translation. "Death to Israel" is easy. "maut"=death.

Don't you recall the Shiite Sheikh in Australia recently claiming ALL OF US support Hezbollah ? Is that not 'most' ?

You are right about the willingness to forgo civil liberties being a potential problem....its as much of a problem as having too many. Striking the balance is indeed an art.

How do you feel about the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of Vic ?
That is FAR more pernicious than any others I know of.

Frank...if you have a chance to view "Obsession: the rise of Radical Islam" I recommend it. You could find most of it on youtube broken up into 1 of n mini video's.

Ellen Goodman's final paragraph very accurately describes the modus operandii of the Howard Government. This scare tactic becoming so brazen and overused that thankfully very many Australians are now far more cynical and questioning of their 'truth'.

It is refreshing, and it is democratic to do so. I remain mystified by those who automatically accept the Government spin on the basis of, 'if the Government says it, it must be right'.

Dr Haneef's case is a classic example of the abandonment of human rights, justice, and plain common decency under the guise of terrorism control.

I look to the Howard Regime and its unholy alliances to pinpoint the root cause of this era of mistrust, xenophobia, and paranoia.

sry, ginx, you're the root cause. you and every ozzie who lets parliament rule you by divine right. find out what democracy means, and stop using the word in reference to oz.

'......who lets parliament rule you by divine right.'(Quote: DEMOS)

..er,..yes?*!.....I..er,let Parliament rule me.....okkkkkk...

That must be right 'cause DEMOS said it.....

Kevin Andrews is either completely incompetent (by letting a suspected terrorist associate out of the country, instead of keeping him in custody, or at least under survelliance), or has acted illegally. Either way, he should resign: http://www.andrewsmustresign.com/.

Why is it in Australia that we have this portion of society purportedly educated and socially sophisticated that believe 1) That Howard or any other figure head actually 'runs' government and 2) seemingly have adopted this 'the tail ought to wage the dog' approach to dealing with issues especially as complex as terrorism where success requires being fully informed and having intervened before the actual act of destruction.
Of who else in society do we have this expectation, and who else do we vilify for their intervention on our behalf. Those who whinge about Haneef's civil liberties need to come back to earth and realise that his civil liberties were protected by the system of investigation and was released to return home to his wife and family. Whether he ought to have been investigated, because having been investigated, found related to investigations elsewhere, and found harmless here, is axiomatic after the fact. We do not praise our police when they find criminality and vilify them when they find links but not acts. All information concerning Haneef was relative and pertinent to security. Haneef was not mistreated. He was found while innocent of terrorism a person of suspicious character. Listen to your mother. Your known by the company you keep. Sometimes I have this horrible thought that our police ought to be incompetent and have a bloody big blast go off killing a couple thousand innocents. It usually takes something horrific like that to wake up the dolts who live in the clouds and have little association with hard core reality. There is evil out there children and your life in that context has no value. Destroying life and institutions is the end of their means. Wake the F... Up!

aqvarivs, I agree that the "civil liberties" side of the argument regarding the Haneef case is on flimsy grounds.
But if Haneef really was of "suspicious character", then what exactly is it that we are suspicious of? Mr Andrews made that perfectly clear by reading out parts of the chat transcript - it did appear that Haneef may have been involved, perhaps indirectly, with the Glasgow Airport terrorists. But in that case, in the interests of our country's security, allowing him to leave the country was entirely the wrong action. If, on the other hand, there really was no evidence that showed Haneef was associated with terrorism, then there was no excuse for wasting taxpayer's money and damaging Australia's reputation by making a political pawn out of a legally innocent man. Andrews' actions have not only made Australia no safer, but have almost certainly contributed towards international ill-will towards Australia, both from terrorists and the general population. If a terrorist group strikes Australia in the next few months, and it turns out that information from Haneef had been used by the group, then how would you feel about Mr Andrews? And if you don't think this scenario is at all likely, then what possible advantage was gained by cancelling Haneef's visa?

wizofaus, actually I believe that if you polled the citizens of other countries(including India), aside from the majority who never heard of Haneef, most would be respectful of Australian sovereignty and hope that in the name of national security that their leaders would be equally determined. Rule one for terrorist and terrorism is to exploit the freedoms inherent in democracy. They see it(democracy)as numerous holes drilled into authoritarianism that must be plugged. Each attack will hopefully have democratic leaders doing that job for them. Each attack will have the Left media chipping away at the leadership. None of this is circumstantial all is by design. Ho Chi Min exploited the Left media in the U.S. and around the world during the Vietnam war in the same way. The North Vietnamese learned from the Russian and Chinese during the Korean war how effective a tool it could be. The Al Qaeda organisation is also using the same tactic in Afghanistan and Iraq and is having the same success. Listen to all the Australians who pray and hope for failure in building democratic institutions in these countries. They want the west out because people are choosing to die for democracy and yet, kept their mouths shut when people were being killed to maintain authoritarian dictatorship. The world doesn't need less democracy it needs more of it. Everywhere! A democratic world would put paid to authoritarian dictatorship and that is the real fear. Not just for the dictators but for the socialist too.

"A democratic world would put paid to authoritarian dictatorship and that is the real fear. Not just for the dictators but for the socialist too." (Quote:Aqvarivs)

Not for me it isn't. I live in hope that we do return to a democracy....

( Spare me the bullwaste that I ought to live in an undemocratic Country..etc., Your statement hinges on the definition of a democracy).

OK..., I noted your previous comments.

I attempted to wake the f..k up with little success. She got very tetchy; it's not worth the risk.

So I attempted to listen to my mother. I DID listen hard. No luck there either; so I just changed the flowers, told her about your post (I swear I heard something then, it sounded like laughter); and left the cemetery.

Here's the thing, and it's just a hint mark you. When you talk down to people addressing them as children, it doesn't endear them to you or your views. It then becomes a tad difficult to take those views seriously.

But I'll try.

TBC.,

Haneef became VERY widely known in India, and the majority there where NOT impressed by his treatment here. They were very vocal about it.

So which would you like Akers? That, as you state; the majority had never heard of Haneef, and would respect the sovereignty of Australia, OR;

They are a bunch of rabid fundamentalists who demonstrated very loudly in the streets in India; which they did.

My point being that you are remarkably tolerant when it suits your political purpose to be so.

Let us be frank and sincere (I shall be Frank and you can try sincere). You are on the Right, and I am on the Left. You will see it your way; I will see it mine.

I remain mystified by your blind following of all that is Government (until the ALP gets in;- then civil disobedience is on for one and all?); and you remain disgusted that I refuse to develop your paranoia. That I refuse to hate. Has it ever occurred to you Akers, that hate begets hate? It really is a dodgy philosophy you know.

Right. I'm off to see if the f..k is awake. (That really was rather impolite Akers).

In a nut shell; Dr Haneef was not the vote getter that JWH hoped.

aqvarivs, explain to me exactly how having Andrews cancel Haneef's visa has strenghtened our democracy or improved our safety and freedoms? Do you believe Haneef represented a threat, or not?
And if so, how is that threat reduced by ensuring he is kept out of the country, where we have no means of tracking his movements or conversations?

There was enough evidence to if not to convict Haneef but at least detain him longer. But thanks to the pressure of good old civil libertarians and defence lawyers, the government had no choice but to let him slip out of Australia.

Haneef like most other terrorists living among us – some in jails – are becoming heroes and martyrs instead of being scrutinised and deported.

Civil liberties and our protection laws are seen as a joke and a sure sign of weakness in the eyes of Islamic terrorists whose only goal is to defeat the west.

Our anti-terror laws will continue to be proven ineffective unless we realises that we cannot afford to play softly and in a “civilized manner’ against a people group who is so determined to destroy us.

In have never voted for Howard – but for me he is the best we have who could deal we the mess we are in right now.

coach,

Okay lets get this clear, there was not even enough evidence (including the so called secret evidence) to have a reasonable chance of convicting Haneef of the charge of "recklessly supply support", let alone connecting him in any meaningful way to the actual plot. As more information became available it became clear that what the AFP had proved that Haneef instead of being the evil terrrrrst(tm) he had originally been made out to be, but instead was an innocent who had tried time and time again to contact the British Police to help them.

Sheesh, talk about sour grapes.

wizofaus,
The government is never going to get the role of anti-terrorism right because it is impossible to investigate individuals prior to their actions with out stepping on their liberties in some fashion. The best the policing units can accomplish is making life uncomfortable for those found to be connected to known terrorism and get them out of the country asap. Or would you prefer that they wait until after the bombs go off. I'd like it to be your choice as long as it is your family and loved ones that get butchered in the explosion and flying debris. Anyone not a citizen and found to be linked to or being of suspicious criminal behavior, whether that is in the nature of terrorism, our family laws, or our criminal laws, should face immediate deportation. We have a large enough number of the criminal and violent elements with out importing more of the same.

"We have a large enough number of the criminal and violent elements with out importing more of the same.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 3:06:31 PM"

I can only agree with this, but it is selective isn't it?

At this moment in time we have 'imported' the very worst example of this.

It is such a relief that this has been recognised, and this particular terrorist has been caged in to minimise any potential damage.

(...............try telling me that this level of 'security' is for more than just this one man. And why is this unprecedented level of caging necessary? Because this creature is hated. He and his Regime have well earned that hate.)