Quote "That Dr Haneef was arrested at Brisbane Airport trying to board a flight on a one-way-ticket to India was also suspicious given its proximity to the attempted bomb attacks."

Why is this suspicious? (Given that the bomb attacks occurred in Britain). Granted, that flying from Britain might in some sense be suspicious, had he been in Britain, but why is flying between two other countries suspicious?

What went wrong in the Haneef case is the way rational thought disappears when persons of other races are involved. Perhaps someone could also tell me - suppose the SIM card had been found in the bomb vehicle - so what? It's no more suspicious than the mechanics who maintained the vehicle (just to take a random example).

And don't forget that the system "worked" only because of the actions of Dr Haneef's lawyer(s), who were attacked by the system to the point of making a formal complaint about their conduct to the legal professional body.

A good summary of what the author describes as the "idiot left".

How so, Leigh? The only particular commentator he attacked was Jason Koutsoukis, who might well qualify as an idiot, but hardly left-wing (he's attacked the Greens party many times, with little justification, and is almost universally unpopular among the various left-wing blogs that I visit from time to time).

Mind you, you also apparently consider Howard to be left-wing, so I don't suppose this is a point worth dwelling on.

So... what was the point of showing such an article that's 6 MONTHS old?!

All this article seems to really do is attempt to bash the "dishonest, ratbag left". Does anyone blithely stamping such monikers on a decent proportion of society really deserve to have their articles discussed further?

Because, Chade, it is part of our Best Blogs 2007 feature and is clearly marked as such. This feature is a showcase for what have been voted the top 40 blog posts for 2007. Susan Prior (ed).

A classic Goebellian, Piers Ackerman style of abuse against anybody who is concerned that our justice system has been severely undermined by the Howard government. The police and ASIO can now enter and search homes and computers at will and without informing us and in our absence. We can be locked up and interrogated for 14 days at a time on the say-so of a malicious neighbour without being allowed to talk about it publicly and indeed without a lawyer being present. We need not be told about the alleged evidence against us. If charged, we can be held in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison seemingly without ever coming to trial, and our trial can be held in camera and without our having full access to the evidence against us. THAT is what the anger about the Haneef case was all about. If the writer supports this type of police-state legislation (which a good number of our conservative legal profession do not) I suggest he go find a communist country to live in. He would do well in N Korea.

A total waste of space, I dont know how this got voted in the top blogs!

I also didnt know there were any 'left wing shock jocks'. Where are they?

With the greatest respect, Susan Prior (ed), I found this article as second under a heading "January 24, 2008".
When I followed this link, I found an article titled "last word on Haneef?". Under this was the line "By Harry Clarke -posted January 24, 2008".
Where exactly was it 'clearly marked' as a best blog of 2007?
In the -locked- basement of council chamber in rural England, perhaps?

Grim: +1
Nowhere on the article's page does it mention "best blogs". The world 'best' isn't even anywhere on the page.

So... "clearly marked"? This article was simply on the home page - you know, 'http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/'?

Maybe it is just clear to me because I look at it every day! It is marked as a "Feature" article on the front page and the Feature for this month is Best Blogs 2007 ... It can also be navigated to from the Feature box on the front page and the Feature in the menu on the left side. Susan Prior (ed)

Harry Clarke,

Repeat after me slowly...'The golden thread that runs through the common law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty'.

It is also advisable to distinguish between investigating an innocent person and demonising a person in order to gain political advantage.

A good illustration of all the above is then Minister Andrews seen on TV stating a propos Dr Haneef..."We don't want people like him in this country"

Who can guess what Harry got for his birthday?

Yes! That’s right! A box full of “ex post”s! It says on the box, “Guaranteed to make user appear learned and wise”.

How on earth did this get in the Top 40? Balance?

Harry carries an unflattering mental image of Teh Left. It clearly torments him and perhaps causes him trouble sleeping. Throughout this…thing…Harry disparages any leftish opinions that he sleuthfully detects:

“Hysterica”, “frenzy”, “dishonest”, “ratbag”, ”propagandist”, “anti-Howard”, “disreputable”, “totally ridiculous”, “the idiot left”, “unsubstantiated stream of allegations”, “overreaction”, “nitwits” and an oldie but a goodie, “anti-western bias”.

Contrast this with his comfort with the appalling mismanagement by the Right of the Haneef affair:

“regrettable initial mistakes”, “normal processes”, “plausible”, only “apparently innocent”, “quickly released”, “imperfections in information”, “Haneef himself left Australia with a smile on his face” (well, that’s all right, then).

For Harry it all amounted only to some silly, trifling oversights by men of unquestionable good will. We could still sleep comfortably while his beloved John steered us safely through the nightmare reefs of the black night of Al Qaida.

But the real danger was the abuse of power and of process that was taking place. Nevertheless, the exercise by Australians of their democratic duty to question the conduct of the system under which we live is in Harry’s frightened eyes a threat to “damage Australia’s security and its ability to investigate and prosecute terrorism”. When, then, might it be safe again for citizens to exercise their democratic rights?

Harry, the flaws in the conduct of the case were not minor, forgiveable abberations. The AFP, Howard and Andrews struck at the heart of the rule of law and democracy. The only reason they failed was on the basis of information which the AFP tried its hardest to withhold and of facts which the government dishonestly and selectively tried their hardest to spin in their own favour.

Says Harry, “the alternative claim by others on the left, that Minister Andrews acted incorrectly under the Migration Act in withdrawing Haneef’s visa, is false.”

Damn! Apparently not (ex post, you know).

Many countries have extreme right governments but Howard's government was on the Top. They victimized an innocent man and humiliated the Australia worldwide. BUT in the last elections we gave a good, a very good lesson to Howard, humiliating him internationally.
It is time for Australian right extremist politicians to understand the White Australia gone for ever
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

it seems fitting that the "last word on haneef" should be a vacuous paranoid rant.

Comments there tell it all:
http://www.brisbanenews.net/story/266492

Regrettably, Anglo-racism works lesser and lesser at the international scale of the third millennium.