Today Kevin Andrews had this to say about the character of Dr. Mohamed Haneef.
His lawyers indicated to my department … that he wanted to get out of Australia as soon as possible. If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions.
So, what did you think of the man that aroused such suspicion in the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship?
The whole ‘character test’ idea seems to be the delegation of critical decisions to Kevin Andrews’ personal gut feelings about a person he’s never met.
You gotta love Kevin Bloody Andrews. Faced with the prospect of being the scapegoat for this snafu (at least three times in the last few days the PM has emphasised that s 503 is Andrews’ decision alone) he’s still reading sinister motives into everything.
Watched the interview, and must say that the Minister and Mick Keelty must resign promptly on Monday morning. This was a monumental own goal.
Haneef is more than credible he is a gentlemen.
“…he wanted to get out of Australia as soon as possible. If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions”
Yes, but what suspicions? The suspicion, Kevin, that you have ruined a good, innocent, doctor’s career?
I think that it is now time for Andrews to become another scapegoat. When the Rodent is cornered, anyone can be jettisoned.
Andrews and Campbell can hold hands on the backbench.
Rudd is sitting on the sidelines watching the ‘master politician’ at work?
Haneef wants to come back, after seeing this if I were Kevin Rudd I’d make the pledge that if he won Govt that he would do that, it’s cheap political capital I know but the Govt has totally self destructed on this and now is the time to apply the coup de gras on this issue.
I’m totally mystified at Andrews’s remark about his suspicions. What suspicions would these be? If you’re genuinely suspicious about the man, why on earth would you give him back his passport and allow him to leave. If Andrews does get cast adrift (and what a fine idea it is), it’d be really nice to think he’d take a few with him. Ruddock and Howard for starters.
And while we’re casting stones, where are the Georgiou-small ‘l’ liberals on this? Their silence is deafening.
“His lawyers indicated to my department … that he wanted to get out of Australia as soon as possible.”
For just a moment there I thought Andrews was referring to Howard and not Haneef.
How anyone with an ounce of intellligence could think Haneef was a terrorist after watching this soft,sincere man in the 60 minutes interview
Yes ‘suspicious’ that he had to leave because he had a newborn child and his visa was cancelled.
They should give Kevin Andrews a new portfolio. Maybe make him the Minister for Fuck Ups. First WorkChoices and now this. I wonder how much damage his incompetence has done to the Liberals chances.
60 Minutes is watched by middle Australia and I’m sure this will have at least an atmospheric impact in that a lot of folks would be sitting there saying “you’ve got to be kidding! This guy is no terrorist”
Goodbye Kevin.
(** Crosses fingers**)
** Only because we no longer have Ministerial responsibility.
Gosh, I don’t know… wanted to see his family? Not enamoured of this country at the moment after the way he’s been treated?
This tells us a lot more about Andrews’ character than Haneef’s.
I knew eventually 60 Minutes would be good for something!
Let Rudd continue to poison himself,after all, would you want to be treated in hospital by Rudd!? Haneef is very lucky,he knows many Australians supported him,and his Government was ready to act. Seeing India is somewhat of a superpower in comparison to ourselves,and I am opposed to their agreement with the U.S.A.,not because I think India irresponsible,but signing on now would mean a attitude that needs to be enforced,rather than denied..with the U.S.A. as a agreement partner.Both Labor and Liberals having quite got round to in a way that resonates with Australians and the Indian population, that, this relationship is important at a individual level.We cannot go on exchanging rapists and child molesters,and have to admit that there is an obligation on Nationals whereever they are. Haneef would not want to comeback if he had a serious obligation to terrorism,but, have Australians got a commitment not to be terrorised and accept that as fate when Uncle Sam reaches out with more than medical isotopes!? I think they are trying to poison off the Russian Indian relationship..we dont need that in our neighbourhood thanks. No nukes makes common sense.Haneef has been a pawn in a greater game and the mushrooms could of also included Andrews who doesnt seem too smart also.
In political terms, Rudd should continue his present course.
Put simply, he should stay out of it. Haneef in the minds of most punters still looks ‘suspicious’. He is a Muslim. He has a beard. He departed (original intention and at the first opportunity} in haste. And as any terrorist expert will tell you:
is crucial to the terrorist persona.
Rudd is playing the smart political game; much as I detest it.
Had Kevin Andrew been able to brandish a blood srained confession note from Haneef admitting to terrorist acts a fortnight ago, none of this would be happening today.
Australia’s terrorist laws need to be modified and strengthened so that the archaic laws can no longer interfere with the lawful interrogation of terrorists. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
No more truer words were said than by Tara Brown in a sound bite for that interview. “No one has walked away with more dignity from the incident than Haneef”.
Contrast the gentle young face of Haneef on 60 Minutes to the rough evil looking drawings in the right wing print media.
The only thing suspicious in this whole fiasco is the politically motivated actions of Andrews, Bugg, “Lap Dogâ?? Keelty, Ruddock and, of course, John Winston Howard. The only reason the case collapsed, IMO, is because Rudd refused to take the bait and fall for a wedge.
Gee, I have no idea why he would want to leave now. Perhaps because he was on his way out to see his new family when he was picked up in the first place. Surely it would arouse more suspicion if he suddenly didn’t want to leave?
Oh, plus the cops wrecked his apartment and his landlord evicted him. On ya Kev.
Kevin Andrews faces his own character test at the hands of the Australian people later this year; Bring.it.on.
Bloody hell. If I’d been treated as Haneef has been treated, I’d have been out of here as fast as I could.
After all, the capricious Andrews might find a new excuse to lock me up.
Gobshites. They make me furious.
There’s this nifty move in judo where you let your opponent’s attack carry him thru face-planted into the mat. The attack has to be crude and badly formulated for this passive defensive move to work.
Howard meet mat. Rudd wins.
And Haneef is some classy guy:
New born baby; worried wife and family; treated abominably; career in jeopardy; smeared incessantly by Howard’s flunkies at the GG and elsewhere and he says:
and he wants TO GO HOME—FFS!!!
The inherent ‘guilt’ of it Mr Andrews, standing out like dogs balls, ONLY to you!
I agree with Mark, it tells us more about Andrews than Haneef.
Beatty is the other person who comes up smelling of roses in this case, giving Andrews another serve on Network 10:
In similar circumstances I’d be very shat off with Australia, & would get out of the country asap.
Be interested to see if he ever returns.
I still come back to the briefing given to KR. Was it any more than Andrew’s gut feelings, or more likely just doing what JWH wanted done to create an issue. Come on boys let us all share your the same information, you can trust us not to tell anyone else.
Andrews is claiming he “may release the protected information which he used as the basis for his decision to cancel the visa of Dr Mohamed Haneef” in the near future.
I wonder if that protected information is going to be as convincing, as, say, the ONA report that became famous in the children overboard affair?
The Condom National Terrorist Security (CNTS) policy of the Howard government: Withholding production and giving a false sense of security to a mob of pricks being stuffed.
Rudd would do very well to stay right out of this as I can guarantee as soon as he bites they will come out with some fantastic bullshit secret evidence and then make Rudd look like a dill.
I would not put it past this govt to come out with some concocted evidence just to save some face. It will of course after the election seen to be in error. Much in the way they used faked evidence in Parliament to character assasinate Justice Kirby.
You would think Kevin Andrews would show some humility after such a flawed and, for Haneef, destructive process – especially given that it has been largely driven by the minister himself. That Andrews chooses instead to cast further suspicion on Haneef because of his departure just reinforces that the flaws in the process were not simply accidents, but the signs of a fatally impaired judgment coupled with a pathological case of political expedience.
How does the minister reconcile his suspicion with the fact that the charges were dropped after a review showing there was insufficient evidence to sustain them? Kevin Andrews must resign, but the focus must remain on the government on this issue right up to the election. Mr Rudd, where the bloody hell are you?
Fire Kevin Andrews facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10674883784
Yeah, he should have stuck around to see what face-saving new charges the government could invent.
I see Ruddock wants to ban books containing insurrectionist history now. In case mad people read them, or some equally ludicrous wedge replacement. You know, the dangerous messages of 1776, East Timor’s liberation struggle, and Nelson Mandela’s ‘terrorism’.
Those whom the Gods would destroy…
Do you think these clowns realise they just went under for the third time? They cant be taken seriously on national security. Nice one Kev!
Rudd has come through with flying colours. The overall message is: He agrees its a priority – but feels it may work better if the relevant Minister wasn’t, say, Bozo the Adenoidal Clown.
Dead Government Walking.
Kevin Andrews excuse should be obvious. I’m off to bed now. But when I wake up all I want to see in tomorrow’s papers is the headline:
Andrews’ Defence: An older boy told me to do it!
Lomandra, you said
Yea verily and amen!!! Me too!!!
Phil:
I haven’t the foggiest idea if Dr. Mohd. Haneef is guilty, innocent or otherwise [However, he did deserve to be questioned - swiftly, thoroughly and professionally - over possible associations with terrorists and over the perception that his behavior was suspicious .... and then either released or charged].
What is crystal-clear from this whole farce is that -
[1] A ten-tonne truck can be driven straight through all the holes in the vicious half-baked “anti-terror” laws. [2] The legal system in Australia is incapable of dragging itself out of the 19th Century and into the 21st. whereas the terrorists have proven that they can move at internet speed and adapt very rapidly to changing situations. [3] It doesn’t matter if you are innocent or guilty – you can still get caught up in this cockeyed system.
And [4] Conventient scapegoats in the Australian Federal Police and in the DPP will be found [or invented] and sacrificed in the media’s circus maximus – whilst no penalties at all will be imposed on the real culprits …. whom I believe are the staff of faculties of Law and certain prominent lawyers who, for decades, have fostered the culture of sloppiness, laziness, obscurantism, wilful ignorance and tardiness that got Australia into this current scandal.
Terrorists everywhere must be rejoicing at our fumbling.
I can visualise some book burning in the future if this lot gets back in LeftyE, but then AG Dracula might have to burn some of those tubes on the Inter-Tubes as well. Google might complain when Dracula legislates to forbid searches beginning with “B” for ‘boemb’ [Inspector Clouseau terminology] and “T” for terrorist.
Mind you, there will have to a re-write of some Children’s books, like “The Wind Schuttle in the Willows” for example, but “The Official Version of History” for Schools edited by John Winston Howard might be something he does in his retirement rather than roll out of the GG’s book publishing division anytime soon.
And according to Jon on RTS, apparently Andrews said just yesterday that:
â??After taking advice, including from the Australian Federal Police, I have indicated that the Commonwealth has no objection to Dr Haneef leaving Australia. Indeed the effect of the visa cancellation is that he should remove himself, he should depart Australia in any event.â??
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/07/27/detention-at-ministerial-pleasure/#comment-322384
I’m not surprised that Andrews is set to be the scapegoat for this one; he’s non-essential to Howard, played the most egregious part in the Haneef affair (but was far from the only Minister to do the wrong thing), and he was already under fire from many, so the PM just has to join the chorus. What astounds me, though, is that he’s still trying to play on suspicion that Haneef may be a terrorist, and using something as obvious as the “he was running away, so he must be guilty of something” gambit.
Now that Haneef has told (and been paid for) his story, I wonder whether we’ll see Ruddock try to change the proceeds of crime laws to apply to those who haven’t been convicted. I’m sure that’s the kind of tightening our legislation needs to protect us from the terrorist threat.
Don’t we have some laws in this country that we could enforce, to prevent ignorant, incompetent, paranoid racists operating in influential decision-making and opinion-forming positions in government, the police and the media?
Abbott defends Andrews:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22153043-5005961,00.html
FFS, LeftyE, there’s 64,900,000 google entries for ‘boemb’; 255,000 entries for “glorify terrorism” that Attorney General Clouseau will have to expunge from Google! I guess he’ll have a mountain of work at Yahoo as well.
(Could be a certain US Senator volunteers to help with his hacksaw, f***en Tubes are everywhere.)
We need legisaltion to protect us from our government.
Who’s running the country while these half-arsed clowns pull idiot wedge stunts all days?
Im sure the Chinese could help Phil out, Peter.
I believe its called “Google Correct”.
Haneef is more than credible he is a gentlemen
Like GB I have no idea whether this guy is a crook either. I am amazed that you (Phil) can be so confident that he isn’t. How do you think his second cousin (currently in the burns ward in UK) would interview? What would be the giveaways that he was a failed mass murderer? These guys are both doctors, so of course they project well. And anyway, don’t you trust Kevin’s judgement on the appropriateness of revoking the guy’s visa?
I just don’t think there is much of a story here. The police obviously stuffed up, but that is hardly uncommon. And a work visa has been revoked. So what? Visas are a privilege. Bring in another doctor – or better still, train a local.
Kevin Andrews. What a dope.
He’s still banging away, trying to support his Visa-pulling stunt, when blind Freddie (who was probably listening to, if not watching 60 Minutes) out there in voterland, can see that Haneef’s no terrorist.
The ground disappeared beneath Andrews’ feet days ago and he’s still trying to tap-dance.
Don’t reckon he’ll be a Minsiter after tomorrow.
Howard will use the policical equivalent of the Vaudeville hook to get him off-stage before he buries the Liberals even deeper.
If Anrew’s is sacrificed I wonder at the continued cohesion within the Liberal party? For this reason we might get govt friendly Galaxy – they might just do their polling in the right areas.
Now we have to wonder how far the Coalition is willing to go, given Rudd’s ability to pick the wedges and avoid them. Will they become extreme? Will we get some bizar revelations about Rudd? Will some looney Liberal party supporter go and blow something up or make threatening phone calls? Will Howard bring in subscription as a wedge or nominate the Pope as GG. Will Andrews and Ruddock come out of the closet together and admit they are androids.
God forbid if this government is returned. Goodbye justice and democracy.
Andyc:
We probably do have a heap of laws, policies, regulations and guidelines to keep ignorant, incompetent racits out of such positions …. but like so much else in Howard’s Soviet Australia, they are conveniently ignored.
Graham Bell: my question was a mite rhetorical, and I agree with you completely.
Lefty E“We need legisaltion to protect us from our government.”
Well said. That is what Constitutions are for. We need a proper one.
“Who’s running the country while these half-arsed clowns pull idiot wedge stunts all days?”
The clowns’ puppetmasters, presumably, to mix metaphors.
But then, it could be argued that a country which allows foreign companies to ship out its considerable mineral wealth, minimally processed, allows water-hungry crops to be grown in semi-desert, and prefers to buy in skilled people and manufactured goods rather than invest in producing its own, can hardly be regarded as “run” by anyone…
I can’t see Andrews being sacrificed. It’d be an admission of a serious fuckup.
This is different to the sacking of Ian Campbell. In the Campbell case, Campbell had done something that the govt said should have been a sacking offence when Rudd did it – i.e. he met with Brian Burke.
There’s no parallel in the Andrews case. Andrews and the rest of them just did the standard fuckup, and the opposition didn’t get involved in it one way or the other. So it’s just bury it under the carpet time.
Howard and co still hope against hope that next time they will pull a rabbit out of that hat that ain’t had no rabbits in it for quite some time now.
PeterTB, the lack of evidence against Haneef supports my judgment. He acknowledges his family and it’s connections etc, he has concern for his cousins parents who are also doctors and respectable members of their community. The reality is that you can pick you friends, not your family. Once that was established he should have been released.
Matt Price had a good column today where he says no one begrudges the initial detention, I agree, I don’t and I’m sure that Haneef doesn’t either, it was understandable. But once past that stage there was unwarranted politicisation of the man. Kafka would be so proud.
BTW I have a side point. What is not understandable on the part of the AFP is the lack of understanding of how South Asian family structures work – the cultural chasm is enormous. Especially how they travel and the nature of remittences.
The responsibilities are extensive and specific, the other family member sent here was appointed by the families because he had anglo western experience, he’d only met Haneef for a few hours in the past, but his responsibilities meant that he could not say no.
For reasons I won’t go into here I have some some idea about this, when I first heard of the connections and what they entailed I knew right away that they had that bit wrong too.
The man is innocent and a victim of circumstance, I have nothing but contempt for anyone not accepting that. And that includes the minister.
The Government Gazette is now going for Andrews too:
Looks like he is being cut adrift and will probably take a dive (to mix metaphors), and so he should.
Go back 3 weeks – see who said what. End of discussion.
GALAXY 54 per cent to the government’s 46 per cent.
What I expected and conveniently 1% lower than 55/45 from before.
Problem is Galaxy hasnt covered itself in glory this year.
Trying to think what great things the govt has done to increase its votes in the past week..haha.
Morgan was 59/41 Newspoll 55/45? Since then the govt has been self-destructing. So what is going on with this Galaxy?
Cheer up Kina any week that no progress is made by the Federal Government is a good week and the Icing will come with the infighting and panic as their more distance supporters smell a rat and dessert them.
It’s plain that Andrews is heavily emotionally invested in saving his own face and cannot be taken seriously as as an unbiased commentator.
“Dead Government Walking.” Lefty E, that’s beautiful.
Q. How can you tell when a goverment has become cheap Political Mayonnaise?
A. When it’s a 60 cent spread.
CBet: Labor 1.65 Coalition 2.25.
Meanwhile, Howard govt. Minister Andrews, a long time situational ethicist, is pondering the possibility of his imminent political euthanasia. Everyone wishes him well.
everyone had a good time laughing at the government? and you think kevvie is different?
the australian government accurately reflects the education and character of the people. you get a government like this, when you are people willing to submit to political gangs.
it’s going to get worse, because you’re too ignorant, too lazy, too self indulgent to get off your bums and make yourselves into citizens.
Well actually we have a thing called the common law that used to do the job. To defend us from the Terrorist Threat at Our Doorstep (HT Miranda Devine), legislation has been passed to degrade that protection. I don’t recall Labor opposing the legislation and Rudd has confirmed that Labor won’t be changing it if they win government.
Does anyone seriously want to argue that all potential ALP ministers could be trusted to do a better job than Andrews?
No, but who was responsible for immediately giving the names, addresses, personal details etc of all concerned, both in Queensland and WA, to the media, thus creating a major political story?
Dear oh Dear, the GG has joined the brigade to put Andrews in the Outer Barcoo Ministry.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22155705-601,00.html
The ALP knows that the wedgeability of the issue has gone up in a puff of smoke:
Some ministerial accountability is about to be necessarily if belatedly applied, but as we all know, the puppet master will have no regrets in casting Andrews aside, in the National interest of the LNP of course.
The worm will turn, even at the Government Gazette, but with Albrechsten sucking on the lone hind teat of fear mongering on this occasion with “No Time to Lose our Nerve.”
The responsibilities are extensive and specific, the other family member sent here was appointed by the families because he had anglo western experience, he’d only met Haneef for a few hours in the past, but his responsibilities meant that he could not say no.
This is generally the attitude of 99.9% of Muslims. They feel duty-bound to help humans with whom they realise they share an inner divinity. Eg. If they see someone engaging in self abuse, they feel compelled to do or say something to help stop that person abusing his body and his spirit–which they share. Non-Muslim westerners have a ‘mind my own business / nothing to do with me / not my problem’ attitude, even towards family members. Perhaps especially towards family members.
I’m not at odds with a ‘live and let live’ attitude necessarily, but I greatly admire Muslims for not running with the selfish individualism theme the west is characterised by (that will probably turn out to be its undoing). We talk about the importance of ‘communities’ because we know we cannot survive without each other. I think however the ‘I’m alright jack’ mentality is actually more in line with the prevailing reality.
We have thoroughly demonised one of the most humane groups of people on the planet.
Tch.
Jesus wept.
(As well he might).
Well said Link. It’s a sad reflection on humanity that while individuals may nurture their own demons, the propensity to demonise groups is a major part of the tool kit of politicians.
Poor old Andrews, couldn’t make the grade with WorkChoices, now he’s stuffed up WedgeChoices.
Q. How can you tell when a goverment has become cheap Political Margarine?
A. When it’s front bench is 60 cent poly-moronsaturated.
So NOBODY is accountable for this stuff up? Not Andrews, Ruddock, Howard, the DPP nor the AFP?
There is consensus this case has been badly mishandled and politically motivated and Howard’s much vaunted anti terror laws are a dog’s breakfast.
Quite clearly we have an unaccountable Government, Executive (ministers) and public service. So much for Westminster government and democracy.
This whole rotten mess needs a complete overall. Tossing out the nuff nuffs would be a good start.
Maybe Andrews is a double scapegoat.
Once for Howard.
Secondly for deeply flawed legislation.
Is anyone meaningfully debtaing the merits of the legislation?
I notice on the radio this morning that Beattie is talking about an apology to Haneef. Labor federally (Senator Ludwig) was talking about an “external review” of the DPP role and for Andrews to explain himself. But they are still being very careful and proper wrt to legal processes currently in train:
That last bit, the AFP further investigations, looks like backside covering to me.
There has still been a tendency to say (including by Channel 9) that Haneef gave his SIM card to a terrorist suspect, which appears to be quite untrue.
Goes nicely with Dead Man Jogging.
Nothing proves that the entire actions by the government on Haneef were a political wedge than Andrews this morning stating he may, after getting advice, “selectively” release some of the secret information he has that proves he was right in cancelling Haneef’s visa.
This wouldn’t be the secret information that wasn’t given to Kevin Rudd in his brief on the situation and was being held back for the moment Kevin went into the fray? Kevin is just now starting to make the right noises on this affair, again on the proviso the entire information on Haneef is released. Kevin played the dead bat perfectly and allowed enough string to be paid out for the government to hang itself.
Just heard on the radio Downer trying to blame shift to the AFP and away from the government, by stating that the government bought in tough and necessary anti-terrorist laws but it was solely up to the AFP to enforce them.
The media and politicians started the rot when they consistently called these murderers terrorists ‘Mulsim terrorists’ therby maligning a whole religion and population plus giving credibility and glory to the animal killers. They should have simply called them terrorists, anti-human terrorists, murderers etc from the begining. The terrorists loved the fact that we kept identifying their acts with ‘Muslim’ – a call to arms for some, helping to divided communities in western societies etc … all from name calling at the begining. And of course Howard enjoyed helping the xenophobia and intolerance along as well.
Is Downer too dense to notice that it has already been established that government mininsters, namely Ruddock and Andrews, have already admitted sitting on evidence that may have been material in determining the outcome of Dr Haneef’s bail hearing?
And it is on the public record that the National Security Committee of the Federal Cabinet, which includes Howard, Ruddock and Andrews, met to set government strategy on this issue.
In other words, contrary to Downer’s denials, this process was thoroughly politicised from the beginning.
So much for separation of powers.
Downer has misled the Australian people and must resign.
I do not understand the logic of Minister Andrews. He revoked Dr Haneef’s visa and did not restore it even when the charges were dropped.
If Dr Haneef does not have a visa and is unable to work how can he support himself in Australia? Will he be allowed to apply to Centrelink or does the government expect him to grateful to stay in Australia at Villawood?
What would a sane person do? Agree to stay in Villawood for an indeterminate period or go back home to freedom, family and friends.
What is suspicious about this? I think this minister is clutching at straws and his behaviour and that of the Howard government is downright despicable .
How strange that the Murdoch papers are taking the lead in going for Andrews’ throat: about time.
AndrewE it’s because it’s screwed up their precious national security narrative on how the Coalition is the only party that can be trusted to save us from the Muslim hordes that help give us medical care
Don’t you love this from Bonsai and Dolly ?
“I don’t think that the Australian authorities victimised him – I reject that,” Mr Howard said in Sydney today.
Mr Howard said Australia would not be apologising to Dr Haneef, rejecting suggestions the doctor was victimised.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was blunter.
“What do you expect them to do – fall on the ground and grovel, eat dirt? I mean, get real,” he said today.
I suggest this tune for both of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqx9moZh6kg (YouTube)
I’d suggest that reality is a concept with which Alexander Downer has but a passing acquaintance.
Not difficult to predict that an apology was not exactly on the agenda for this pack of grubs.
We decide who leaves this country and the manner in which they leave.
Get real indeed!
Hands up all those who are surprised that Janet Albrechtsen has commited a logical flaw whose effects are favourable to the position of the discredited Federal Government?
None surprised? I thought not.
Albrechtsen has commited the stale old false dichotomy illogicality.
Albrechtsen appears to need reminding that the Lindy Chamberlain case aroused huge concern on at least two issues:
1. The prejudicial effects of media coverage.
2. Uncritical acceptance of forensic evidence (e.g., the so-called foetal blood that turned out to be be sound-proffing compound.)
And so we fast forward a quarter of a century and what do we find causing huge concern in the Haneef case?
1. The prejudicial effects of media coverage, as manimuplated by government and law enforcement authorities.
2. Uncritical acceptance of untested evidence, as manipulated by government and law enforcement authorities.
Looks like Chamberlain’s dingo has bitten Albrechtsen on the bum!
Its pretty clear that senior libs believe the Haneef episode is playing well in the moron demographic.
Maybe they’re right – but they’re losing a doctor’s wife for every talkback patsy they win.
More importantly, they’ve lost the smarter RWDB opinion makers (eg Faris, the GG), who smell the stench of rank incompetence and don’t want to be associated.
I think that this confirms that Kevin Andrews is unable to perform his duties as Minister for Immigration because this paranoid idiot is not capable of holding a “reasonable” suspicion.
This is what I think Howard et al. were relying on as irrefutable evidence of Haneef’s ‘bad character’.
I’d like to know how an unreviewable ‘suspicion’, taken in secret, and apparently based on information not provided to the court of law reviewing the case qualifies as “reasonable” in any sense of the word, let alone in a democracy based on rule of law.
I agree. Traction with the moron demographic can be the only reason Andrews is pursuing his ridiculous line, as everybody else sees it for what it is.
The GG may be going Andrews because they have smelt blood and are part of the scapegoating exercise.
Still nobody accountable for the stuff up. Just some “secret intelligence” that Andrews claims justifies his approach. And more smears and disinformation from him and the AFP on “still continuing investigations”.
Well that’s one more dud rabbit out of the hat. How many more will we see?
Has “Herr Rudd2dick gone overseas?
The average gestation period for a human is 9 months. One assumes that Dr Haneef has a reasonable idea when his wife was going to give birth and would have booked his flight/leave well in advance. There was no medical emergency that dictated emergency-leave. To suddenly pack bags and get a one way ticket out of Australia at a moments notice is slightly suspicious to say the least.
Dezza,
Nice try, thanks for playing. Don’t you have a cabinet department to be running?
As far as the one-way ticket – I suggest you try flying overseas with a “flexible” return ticket. The airlines make it almost impossible to use. If you are genuinely not sure when you’ll be back (like, for instance, if you have a newborn baby that is unwell) getting a one way ticket is about your only option.
No-one is saying the police were wrong to at least question him initially. The problem is that once it became clear that they had nothing, nothing at all, the correct thing to do was to release him. Instead, the Minister for Fixed Staring Into The Middle Distance met with his superiors in cabinet and decided to turn this into political theatre.
On the subject, I haven’t seen this piece mentioned anywhere. Keelty is pulling the full Rodent here – it’s everyone else’s fault, and for a bonus, there’s a shot of him jogging.
From that piece, btw, is this magnificent quote that almost beats Andrews for sheer gall:
Mr Keelty said the case had been “poorly handled by some sections of the media”.
Dezza, the range of delivery dates in a normal, healthy, term pregnancy spans at least a month. It’s entirely reasonable that Dr Haneef may not have felt he had enough money/leave time to take six weeks or so off work on the odd chance that his wife would deliver within that time frame.
Similarly, it’s feasible that he planned to visit home a little later if all was well, and that the early delivery, emergency C section, and ill baby changed his mind.
Junior medical training programs don’t just offer unlimited leave whenever doctors feel like it, and even if leave is available, it can be difficult to complete all the mandatory rotations for a training program’s requirements if a doctor takes substantial time off in the middle of it.
Either way – the point is, it’s none of anyone else’s damn business. Free people can travel internationally whenever they like, without being forced to explain their reasons in detail to you, the government, or anyone else’s satisfaction.
What a fart in the bath all this is. And what a bunch of drama queens you are. Friend and relative of international terrorists gets questioned and charged. After a couple of weeks, prosecution case too weak to take to trial, charges dropped, man goes free.
NEXT! This happens all the time. Haneef is lucky he was in Australia. If he’d been suspected in India, he wouldn’t be seeing his baby for many moons yet.
Spotted this on Tim Dunlop’s site. Thought it might lighten the mood and provide a humerous side to the issue.
John Howard, the wizard of spin, the Shane Warne of Australian politics comes in at the kiribilly end to bowl the final ball of the over to crafty right-hand batsman, Rudd.
â??Smackâ??, Rudd to mid on, takes a quick single.
Andrews, the slow/medium pacer comes on at the Dr Kaneef end to deliver his typical Howard delivery into his own half of the pitch.
â??Wackâ??, six, what a shot by Rudd, all he did was hold his bat out in front of him and the bounce of the ball from Andrews did all the damage.
What a game!
This test looks like turning out much different to the previous 4 that were won convincingly by the experienced Howard team.
Rudd and his team mates seem to have learnt quite a lot from the L/NP teams tactics and are turning it against them.
Labor, none for 780, L/NP all out for 51, what a match.
What will Rudd do with the next delivery from Andrews? Will Howard be forced to take him off if Rudd decides to really take to him and hit six 6â??s off his bowling in this over?
We all wait the outcome with baited breath.
And this one.
Welcome back to the SCG. Your commentators through to stumps are Richie Bentlow and Bill Unreliable.
Well Richie, how do you see the game unfolding, given the extraordinary happenings over the last few days?
It is quite extraordinary Bill, during the Tea break, I mingled amongst the crowd in the Haneef stand and found in general a lot of support for the tactics that Ruddâ??s team have been adopting in this match.
At the moment, 56% believe that Ruddâ??s team will win the match whereas only 44% think that Howard has any chance of pulling the match out of the fire being directed towards them.
Nevertheless Richie, as the old saying goes, â??itâ??s not over till the fat lady singsâ??, and I thought I heard her warming up back in the Rudd changing room.
Yeah, Bill, its certainly turning into one hell of a cracker match eh?
Dezza: I think the story was that Haneef’s father in law bought the ticket because Haneef didnt have any money. Also the child was born by CZ, went home and had to go back into hospital because of jaundice or some such thing. He booked the time off with his employer no secret and even discussed the birth on-line.
It is truly unfair to say it is supicious. I have had to book an emergency flight for similar reasons. I have also tried to use open tickets in the past – but found it impossible to get a seat back to Australia on stand-by in Singapore. Never do that again! Not easy sleeping on their floors.
I think we need to avoid looking for sinister actions in everyday events to simply justify a pre-held position such as Andrews has stuck himself with.
Andrew E says: “How strange that the Murdoch papers are taking the lead in going for Andrews’ throat…”
Noticed that myself this morning too….and nearly choked on my wheeties.
I reckon the penny’s finally dropped at the Government Gazette that Howard’s finished and they’re thrashing about, trying to regain a bit of credibility with an electorate that’s fixing to bury the old coot in a few short months. Thus the backflip with reverse spin.
So far as I’m concerned, after years of servile sucking-up to Howard and his loathesome mob, they’ve a whole lot more to do before I’ll have any time for the spinmeisters at the GG.
lefty e asks:
I think that’s a bloke in immigration totting up Haneef’s bill for his incarceration, asking Andrews on Friday afternoon, â??excuse me, Minister, should I send this “registered or ordinaryâ???
Wrong again John G:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22014012-662,00.html
Including Peter Faris QC, Melbourne barrister and pro-terrorist legislation supporter of Howard???
It seems Andrews is not the only one clutching at straws.
Rudd finally criticises the Government. And puts more blowtorch onto Andrews’ belly.
So buying a one-way ticket is signficant to some now! Golly, I bought two recently. Can I expect a knock on the door from the AFP about my suspicious behaviour?
Get serious Dezza – this is really clutching at straws. Keep on digging though, its interesting to watch the hole getting deeper.
Rudd.
Going, going, gone for a six Ritchie!
Phil, I think there is a lot more cricket to come with this one.
I can’t wait for Parliament to resume. Question time should be a real doozy for a few days.
What about when Howard eventually names the date and we are into the election proper. This has been by far the most entertaining campaign that I have ever experienced, and that is a hell of a lot of them.
Back to you Richie.
Haneef was obviously now not directly involved in any active terrorist plot. Perhaps not so obvious to Andrews at the time.
But is Andrews now sticking to his decision because he’s a stubborn bastard, or genuinely worried by Haneef? Bear in mind that Andrews will have access to national security information that we won’t. Ever. Further bear in mind that all the public has been told are selected leaks and innuendo from Haneef’s defence lawyers, and the AFP/Queensland Police/DPP – each intended to pursuade rather than illuminate.
As denture-horror Bashir has proven, there’s a gap between committing a criminal act and just musing about one with intent to impressionable suckers. Is Haneef completely innocent? If so, give him the key to the city, a groveling apology in writing, and damages. Fair’s fair.
Or, on the other hand, is he some Mamdouh Habib-like wannabe – caught before he had a chance to turn his “inner-struggle” into an outie? In which case Andrews is right to kick him out – even though no crime has been committed.
People will line up on the usual sides of this question, but I hope next time there’s someone under suspicion – the government puts them in detention and investigates their bone-fides just like they did with Haneef. I’d just somehow hope I could have more confidence in the participants – on both sides.
I’m not sure how many of those questions will be coming from the ALP given that Rudd has backed the government on the back of the same briefings from the AFP.
I’m sure Kerry Nettle and Bob Brown will ask plenty. I can’t imagine anyone listening though.
Not quite:
1. Federal Government Minister Kevin Andrews asserts that the withdrawal of Haneef’s visa compels him to leave the country.
2. When Haneef does leave, Federal Government Minister Andrews asserts that Haneef’s actions deepen his suspicion. Andrews appears to be unaware of how ludricrous he sounds.
Moreover, Faris estimated that this fiasco is likely to cost the Australian taxpayer close to $1m in compensation.
I’ve given a SIM card away. Please arrest me. I could use $1m.
For $1million I would have given them the whole phone.
It’s the Second test match of Prime Ministers 11 v Indian Doctors and we in the commentary box have a secret directional microphone down where Captain Howard is giving his team a pep talk, let’s listen in:
Cricket. Not the game Howard plays, but analogies thereof are so so apt.
Peter Kemp! I mean Richie.
Hell mate. You sure know how to bowl well underarm.
I very nearly spilt a whole glass of chardonnay all over my keyboard.
That’s definitely not cricket man, it’s more like WMD’s coming from your computer.
If there’s even a hint of intelligence that Haneef was less than pure, it will be leaked by Andrews, just to save what’s left of his reputation.
Phil,
The cultural points you make may be credible explanations of his behaviour, but do not constitute positive proof of innocence.
The man is innocent and a victim of circumstance, I have nothing but contempt for anyone not accepting that.
So anyone who disagrees with you attracts your contempt?
Sweet
“Andrews will have access to national security information that we won’t.”
Wouldn’t that information have been available to the DPP who would have to prosecute the case?
Wouldn’t that information have formed part of the review of evidence undertaken by the DPP?
If the DP doesn’t have access to that information how were they supposed to successfully prosecute Haneef?
If the DPP didn’t have access to that information, why not? Was he considered a security risk?
I can understand the information being withheld from the magistrate as once part of proceedings the information would become public but to also keep the DPP in the dark?
“Rudd has backed the government on the back of the same briefings from the AFP.”
No Rudd has backed them on the basis of information provided. That does not necessarily mean he was provided with any more infornmation than the public.
In fact Rudd today says he has no idea what secret evidence Andrew’s based his decision on.
“What has formed the basis of his decision most recently to change the form of incarceration of Dr Haneef, and what then became the basis of his decision to order the deportation of Dr Haneef and other actions taken … I do not know.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/haneef-questions-need-answers/2007/07/30/1185647809297.html
Spiros on 30 July 2007 at 6:37 pm
If there’s even a hint of intelligence that Haneef was less than pure, it will be leaked by Andrews, just to save what’s left of his reputation.
I think that Andrews has not only left us in no doubt that he has little concern over his reputation but that thyere are grave doubts that there may even be a hint of intellegence in his poor excuse for a head.
Given the number of facts that have been presented incorrectly so far can we believe anything Andrews releases now? The manner of lies presented so far has been astounding (facts twisted 180 degrees) and Andrews was at it again yesterday, lying about when the baby was born.
In fact anything Andrews releases now will be for the purpose of xenorating himself and thus already beggars belief. This is what happens when you play electioneering politics with the legal system – you lose any right to have the benefit of doubt.
Howard/Ruddock/Andrews decided to stick there noses in an straightfoward process of the police and escalate it into a major terrorism event – they deservedly got bashed in the face for the crime of undermining democracy and justice system. Also proving that these laws cannot be trusted to operate without Political interference.
In fact it almost certainly means he was provided with more information than the public.
And if he now says the evidence for Andrews’ decision doesn’t exist, then why was he backing it a fortnight ago? And he did despite any denials now. Was that just to present a small target on a wedge issue? Is his decision being “revised” now that he thinks the wind is changing? Will he have to work the revisionist gearbox like Sterling Moss if the wind changes back?
BTW, that quote is the classic Gareth Evans Foreign Department wonk weasel-speak that Rudd lapses into far too often.
EXONERATED terror suspect Mohamed Haneef is unlikely to get his Australian visa back, Prime Minister John Howard said tonight.http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/29/haneef-on-60-minutes/#comment-388439
Looks like they are going to dig in and try to hold the little bit of low ground that they have been herded into.
I bet they hope that a sudden flash Rudd, sorry flood doesn’t suddenly sweep down from the high ground and wash them away.
Bring on the election Mr Howard.
I find an open return to be the most cost effective method of international travel.
But then, I’m not a doctor who has had to carefully schedule with my employer any time away from work knowing exactly which date I’ll have to be back at my surgery.
Haneef knew his return date to Australia. Er.. he WAS returning wasn’t he?
Maybe, like a lot of the AFP information, it turned out to be wrong or invented!
Sorry, correction, wrong link. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22160203-1702,00.html
Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd repeated his call for an independent judicial inquiry into the case, saying it was the only way to answer questions “hanging in the air” about the Government’s treatment of Dr Haneef.
“I have no confidence in the Government conducting its own internal administrative review,” Mr Rudd said to the South Australian Press Club.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22160203-1702,00.html
Who said that Rudd was lying low. I don’t blame him for doubting the value of an internal Howard Government review. I wouldn’t have any faith in one either. Remember AWB.
By the way Mark, how’s the cold getting on? I missed your insightful comments today.
On and on it goes. Check this out.
MORE than 140,000 people are on a secret waiting list to get specialist outpatient care in Queensland’s public hospitals, a report has revealed.
Professor Ken Donald, who headed a review of specialist outpatient services, said there were so many new patients, some files were marked “never to be seen”.
“Our view was that unless this was addressed clearly and squarely now, in five years time it will be out of control,” Prof Donald said on the Gold Coast today.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22160531-1702,00.html
They are going to have more difficulty meeting targets now with Haneef gone and now this!
A GOLD Coast doctor who worked alongside former terror suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef and who was questioned by Australian Federal Police (AFP) earlier this month has been suspended from his job.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22160709-1702,00.html
Ruddock on The 7.30 Report: the only reason the DPP dropped the charges was that he couldn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that Haneef gave his SIM card to a terrorist organisation in 2006. Clear implication: if they could have convinced the court that Haneef’s cousin was the agent of a terrorist organisation, they would have proceeded with the case.
This means one of two things I think. Either they are engaging in mind-numbingly legalistic application of the law without any interest in its practical ramifications, or they still believe Haneef’s cousin, and also Haneef, were implicated in the UK terrorist acts and the only reason they can’t nail them is that they didn’t constitute ‘an organisation’ at the material time.
The problem with the latter alternative is that you would expect the Brits to be rather keen to interview and extradite Haneef if it were true, since good old-fashioned accessory before the fact laws should be more than enough to bang him up in the country where the crimes actually occurred, but from what we know the Brits couldn’t care less about the doctor.
Whatever the reasoning is we deserve to be told … or at least we deserve more than this James Bond ‘Ssssshh I can’t say, it’s a secret’ bullshit. I mean does Andrews seriously expect us to believe that these clowns in the UK were part of some sophisticated global network and he can’t prejudice continuing investigations by revealing the extent of his information?
BTW SATP, why do you expect people to keep summarising for you stuff that’s been all over the MSM? I mean if you’re too lazy or disinterested to inform yourself stop asking idiotic questions to which the answers have been readily available for days.
Still nasty, Scorpio, but thanks for asking!
They are sticking with it.
But speaking to ABC Radio’s AM program this morning, Mr Andrews says he still believes the decision to throw the doctor out of Australia was the right one.
“Nothing that I saw in the interview with Dr Haneef changed my mind as to the suspicions and doubts I had about the matter,” he said.
Mr Andrews stuck by his decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa on character grounds and said he wanted the protected police information that helped him make the decision to be made public today or tomorrow at the latest.
“Hopefully when people see the further information available to them, they’ll be able to see that there are more circumstances than have been made available to them to date,” he said.
“When the further information is hopefully made available, then people will be able to see the whole picture.
“I think that will then put these things in a different context, to perhaps what they have been seen at the present time.”
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/30/1991369.htm?section=justin
This will need to be good. If they have nothing, they will look like jackasses and if they really do have some strong incriminating evidence, (not concocted), they will look incompete3nt for letting Haneef off the hook to return home!
The ABC news story said his case had nothing to do with terrorism.
Mark, I posted on this before and it disappeared. Will try again.
MORE than 140,000 people are on a secret waiting list to get specialist outpatient care in Queensland’s public hospitals, a report has revealed.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22160531-1702,00.html
Looks like the waiting lists will get even longer with Dr Haneef gone and another one suspended.
A GOLD Coast doctor who worked alongside former terror suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef and who was questioned by Australian Federal Police (AFP) earlier this month has been suspended from his job. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22160709-1702,00.html
I am starting to wonder about who is wedging who here.
OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd has finally waded into the controvery surrounding Mohamed Haneef’s detention by calling for an inquiry. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22157265-11949,00.html
Looks like The Age is doing some wedging of its own.
Kevin Andrews risks sustaining more damage to his reputation through his dogged defence of his decision to cancel Mohamed Haneef’s visa.
Having come under heavy criticism in the past two weeks for his decisions in the Haneef affair, the last thing the immigration minister needs is to keep digging.
And finishing with!
But Mr Andrews is throwing mud at Dr Haneef and hoping some sticks, to shield himself from blame for one of the government’s more spectacular strategic implosions.
He may yet pay with his career. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/spotlight-on-andrews-over-bungles/2007/07/30/1185647821268.html
Phil:
Andrews has been foolishly too trusting of fellow party members and he has shown the whole world how naive he is in political tactics.
A suitable penalty for his folly would be to force him to remain as Minister until the next election.
It is worrying that the AFP and the DPP don’t seem to have too many chess players or poker players among them. [Well, what's the alternative explanation??]
As I said before – terrorists everywhere must be rejoicing over this farce.
With his infuriating dissembling, equivocations, mealy mouthed mee-tooism I’m starting to see Krudd as less Howard-lite than the Cadaver with ‘-ock’.
Ken Lovell, for stupidity you are best advised to look in the mirror.
Consumption of the MSM is very selective by posters here. The obtuse response here to any inconvenient truth demonstrates that anything found in the MSM is not necessarily accepted here.
In conclusion, read my first sentence again.
Like the AFP supposedly writing the names of suspects in his diary? That self-serving morsel of invented information came from his defence team. What the AFP has done wrong will hopefully come out and be corrected, but Haneef’s lawyers are the last people I’d rely on to reveal it.
On the other hand, we may never know what the AFP got right.
Er, AWB was an independent judicial review.
Oh BTW SATP when are you going to elaborate on your advice to ‘Keep in mind that several of his contemporaries were refused visas in the first place
? I can’t wait to hear what you meant.
Craig Mc
Er, AWB was an independent judicial review.
You mean that it was initiated independently of the Howard Government, with terms of reference independently set to properly probe into all aspects of the matter and come up with findings and recommendations that would satisfy the most discerning observer of the process.
You’re kidding us Craig, aren’t you? Surely you are just having a lend of us? You couldn’t possibly be serious with a statement like that, could you?
Just saw Dr Haneef on Lateline getting showered with rose petals on his return home to India.
I bet Howard, Andrews, Ruddock and Downer are feeling a bit put out. They are currently getting showered with all the mud and dirt they tried to dish out to Dr Haneef.
Scorpio, your comment was caught up in the Spaminator and I fished it out – it’s there now.
Ken Lovell, are you saying that you are unware of what is written in the MSM?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22027212-2,00.html
You don’t recall this story? Probably not. A bit inconvenient isn’t it?
Fully aware of that story SATP. Two blokes missed out on jobs they applied for because their qualifications didn’t meet the selection criteria. What is its relevance to your assertion that several contemporaries were refused visas?
Scorpio, your comment was caught up in the Spaminator and I fished it out – it’s there now.
Thanks Mark. I hope it hasn’t caught your cold. I tried to post it again anyway but couldn’t quite remenber how I set it out.
I think I have had too much to say today anyway.
Howard and Co have been too opportunistic thereby destroying any chance of objectivity, tainting anything to do with this case.
Politicians should stay well away from the judicial system and a Minister should not have the power to withdraw the visa but an independant person/group.
The real question is how did the evidence get presented so wrongly? So wrongly in fact it must have been deliberate – that is the real worry since it carries with it an attempt to falsify and set up Haneef. And that leads us to political pressure to do so.
At most Haneef’s only negative point is that he may have known his cousins held radical views, but then again I imagine that would be fairly common. It wouldn’t mean that he had the slightest idea they would go overboard. And apparently cells keep these things secret anyway. Then again they say the silent types also participate in radical events without warning.
So I am guessing Andrews information will be pretty much what we know:
He was a member of a student group now banned in India. His cousins were members of some radical but not banned muslim group in the UK [but we know he did not live with these people]. If you were to use this criteria to withdraw visas you might have to send home a whole bunch of people plus kick a bunch of Aussies as well. This guilt by remote association, a risky criteria to rest on.
We need to be careful in our keeness on strong terrorism laws we dont destroy the very thing we are trying to protect – freedom, liberty fairness, justice etc.
Time to move onto the next wedge.
No, because there’s no such beast. Ever. What country are you living in? We don’t have roaming special prosecutors in Australia. Judicial enquiries are commissioned by the government of the day (yes, I know technically it’s by the head of state). Some constitutional thingy I’m sure.
Now you’d think that someone who is demanding independent judicial reviews would realise that the Cole Enquiry was an independent judicial review – in fact a royal commission – the highest form of independent judicial review (court cases aside) in the country.
I get the impression you don’t like the result of the Cole Enquiry, but that’s the problem with independent reviews, isn’t it?
Err Craig,
Now you’d think that someone who is demanding independent judicial reviews would realise that the Cole Enquiry was an independent judicial review – in fact a royal commission – the highest form of independent judicial review (court cases aside) in the country.
I get the impression you don’t like the result of the Cole Enquiry, but that’s the problem with independent reviews, isn’t it?
You mean that it was initiated independently of the Howard Government, with terms of reference independently set to properly probe into all aspects of the matter and come up with findings and recommendations that would satisfy the most discerning observer of the process.
No, because there’s no such beast. Ever. What country are you living in?
Just a slight rearrangement Craig, but still reads right to me, especially the last line.
Definately the last one for tonight! Michelle Gratten of The Age giving Howard and co a little backhanded slap.
KEVIN Andrews has ministerial responsibility for cancelling — and keeping cancelled — Mohamed Haneef’s visa, but this decision involved everybody who matters in the Howard Government. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/in-war-on-terror-anything-goes/2007/07/30/1185647828694.html
Scorpio, just a suggestion. Can you please use the b-quote button above the comments box or even just quotation marks to signal when you’re quoting another’s comment? It would make distinguishing what you’re quoting and what your response is much easier.
Now we won’t get to hear the so-called “evidence” that Andrews supposedly based his visa cancellation decision on. From The Age:
This is Orwellian. All formal evidence to date has been too weak to even charge Haneef, and even Andrews let him go on his “secondary concerns”.
Yet Andrews (and Howard) continue to use their high office to hint and suggest that “Haneef has done wrong but as yet we cannot prove it”. This is wrong, and an abuse of their authority and position.
Andrews and Howard should put up or shut up and stop playing politics.
Maybe we need an impartial Executive. Politicians like Andrews and Ruddock don’t do this job well.
Dolly Downer channelling repressed memories of the consequences of bedwetting at some dismal English boarding school:
To me the most important point in all of this is the unprecedented powers given to the Minister for Immigration in the Migration Act. These powers to cancel a ‘non-citizens’ visa on character grounds have absolutely no oversight, judicial or otherwise. The minister is answerable to nobody, indeed it is my understanding that he is obliged NOT to release the information on which he based his decision.
And guess who was Minister for Immigration when this powers were enacted with virtually zero media attention?
Does anyone know the sex of Haneef’s baby; one assumes its male as they have a rather quaint hobby over there of aborting most females.
Did he actually organise a return date to Australia? can’t imagine any Health Authority giving open-ended leave to a junior doctor. The child wasn’t critically sick…jaundice in a newborn is more of a nuisance and generally clears up in a few days after minimal non-invasive treatment.
As for Haneef’s feeble excuse that he couldn’t afford a ticket, Mrs Haneef looked very comfortable in her palatial marble-clad dwelling, as she nursed bub.
Simple question folks, it’s not rocket surgery, …when did he plan to return?? The twelfth of never?
Well done Dezza! It’s good to see that neanderthals like yourself have the wherewithal to take a break from hunting mammoth and have a go at writing.
Keep banging the rocks together. You’ll get there in the end.
Perhaps Dezza could take up his concerns with Dr Haneef’s Australian employers, who have stated that they would be pleased to employ Dr Haneef whenever his work visa may be restored.
Or perhaps Dezza believes that the Qld Health Service is a branch of Islamic Jihad.
Dazza, heard of Google? Haneef reportedly cried when he saw the first pictures of his newborn baby daughter.
adrian
Newsflash. These powers have always existed. Recall the way Keating used his Prime Ministerial discretion to over-ride his Immigration Minister, Chris Hurford, as it suited the NSW Labor Right’s branchstacking agenda.
I am not saying that Keating, Hurford, or Andrews were right, wrong, or otherwise. I am merely pointing out the Haneef case is far from unique in the use of ministerial discretion.
“The child wasn’t critically sick…jaundice in a newborn is more of a nuisance and generally clears up in a few days after minimal non-invasive treatment.”
If I had a) a newborn daughter or b) a sick daughter (whether serious or not) or c) both, I would do everything I could to clear my calendar to be with my child, as would 99% of people. If I could get away with it, I would make it an open-ended period of leave. Seeking motivation for these things is a no-brainer if you have an ounce of human empathy.
The real question is about evidence, not about ‘suspicious behaviour’ ie any behaviour at all when viewed in the context of the presumption of guilt. Guess what, it was shoddy evidence and hot air. The rest is insubstantial speculation.
And surprise, surprise. Andrews isn’t going to release any information.
Jaundice is a baby is a serious problem until otherwise proven.
His father in law bought the ticket and Mr Haneef had organised the trip prior to the UK events having gained permission of his employer. ALL these facts were easily verifiable and we can assume they were since Keelty has not gain-said the written record of interview.
It appears some of the SIM card error was caused by Scotland Yard’s wrong information.
I wonder how the average punter in the street has seen all this?
JG, this may all be a bit to complex for you to grasp, but s501(3) was added to the Act in 1998. I believe Ruddock was minister at this time:
This is clearly the power which he exercised in relation to Haneef, and which specifically excludes any concept of natural justice.
Dezza, you ask some curious questions that don’t seem to me to be related to the Howard government’s gross mismanagement of Haneef.
By the way, what is “rocket surgery”.
My local cafe engages in some pretty fancy rocket surgery!
It’s similar to brain science.
__________________________________
This is the provision for establishing the so-called “character test”.
As swingeing as these provisions may be, the legislation still contemplates a possibility that the Minister cannot in good conscience apply the character test to deny a visa.
Perusal of those provisions makes it somewhat difficult to imagine which of them Kevin Andrews could, in good conscience, exercise in order to exclude Dr Haneef.
I think that 6(c)(ii) is sufficiently broad to allow just about anything through, particularly as there is no provision for review and natural justice is specifically excluded.
I think this is the most likely candidate for why Haneef failed the character test, given that Haneef’s second cousin has been charged with respect to the Glasgow attack. Of course, there are questions as to what constitutes an “association”, and whether being subject to a charge of criminal conduct constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion of involvement in criminal conduct.
Yeah, that was even less impressive than Rudd’s Gareth Evans impression.
You mean a fishing expedition? Sort of like when you send someone out to investigate dodgy land deals and they end up pressing charges for lying about oral sex to a grand jury?
I for one am very glad we have the system we do rather than the insane partisan spectacles we’ve seen in the USA this last decade. And your final requirement can never be met – it’s impossible to satisfy everyone. Personally I’m satisfied that you’re not satisfied.
Craig Mc
I thought it was a priceless and perfectly apt response to journo grubs.
The “Secret Evidence” has finally been released.
Mr Andrews said the solicitor-general’s advice covered matters such as contact between Dr Haneef and his cousins in the UK, who are accused of involvement in the failed plot to bomb central London and Glasgow airport.
“Importantly, there was a computer room conversation, a chat room conversation, with Dr Haneef’s brother in India on the afternoon before his attempted hasty departure from Australia,” Mr Andrews said.
“In it, the brother of Haneef says `nothing has been found out about you’ and asked when Dr Haneef would be getting out, to which Haneef replied `today’.
“The brother asked whether he had permission to take leave and what he told the hospital.
“Dr Haneef said he told them his baby was born in an emergency caesarean. The brother told him to `tell them that you have to as you have a daughter born, do not tell them anything else’.
“The brother then said not to delay his departure and not to let anyone else use his number in Australia, nor to give it to anyone.”
Even if there really is as strong a case for involvement (or knowledge) as is implied by this alleged evidence, it makes the actions of the DPP and AFP no less appalling. The criticism of their behaviour isn’t (or ought not be) predicated on the guilt or innocence of Dr Haneef, any more than the treatment of David Hicks is more acceptable because he finally pleaded guilty.
Did Mr Andrews mention, at the press conference, whether the words he quoted are a translation or verbatim?
None of this suggests that Haneef had any foreknowledge of his relatives’ activities in England and Scotland.
All of this suggests that Dr Haneef and his family were rightly concerned about recent events on the well-being of his family.
When this conversation is added to the fact that Dr Haneef tried to contact British authorities after the terrorist incidents, this behaviour adds up to the actions of a peaceful and law-abiding man.
Kevin Andrews has further besmirched the reputation of an innocent man.
Well then, even if that means something: why did they let him go?
Any way you slice it, they’re incompetent.
Presumably Haneef knew at the time he had the conversation that his cousins had been arrested, and he probably knew that the SIM card might get him into trouble. He may also have known, or reasonably suspected that the AFP were on his tail. I don’t see that what Andrews has released adds anything to the grounds for revoking his visa. He’d have had to surrender his passport anyway as a condition of bail. There’s still no association made out other than the fact that he was related to the bombers.
Comment crossed with Katz and Lefty E.
Andrews was mainly quoting what the Solicitor General or the AFP told him. He did not release all the information either. Sounded like a police spokesperson for something on ABC Newsradio.
It all seems to be a case of the Andrews wedge didn’t work so how about we throw a drum of fuel on the fire. It was an amateurish performance and a well worn political tactic. It was a complete contradiction on what Ruddock told us on the 7.30 Report last night. Maybe Andrews could not understand what Ruddock was saying.
“nothing has been found out about you”.
The Haneef email text is highly suspicious but not enough by itself to sustain prosecution. However it is more than enough to warrant Haneef being expelled from the country and never allowed back.
The more hysterical elements on the Left now have egg all over their faces.
Harry Clarke stands tall: http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/07/andrews-was-prudent-to-act-on-valid.html
Ruddock last night on 7.30 Report.
If thats the type of evidence before Andrews, I can see why the DPP dumped the case.
Wouldnt last ten seconds in a court.
Its entirely consistent with two people concerned about an (innocent) association with criminals getting one of them caught up in a world of BS. Which, of course, is precisely what happened.
Not saying thats what the conversation means, of course, as I have no idea.
But this “evidence” wouldnt even get the Crown prosecutors past a committal hearing; and clearly they knew it.
True, Lefty E and that is why Andrews dragged it outside the court system and into the political system as have Ruddock, Downer, Howard and other senior ministers.
Yep Steve. And thats why I think the Rudd strategy of ‘nod, and change the topic’ is correct.
These are the gutter trawling rats of Australian politics, bottom-feeding off fear, and more advanced political actors will do well to simply starve them of energy and attention.
Thanks for the link, Mel. I see good ole Harry doesn’t even bother to embroider the official government talking points anymore, just reproduces them wholesale from the GG:
http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/07/andrews-was-prudent-to-act-on-valid.html
Mel I often read Harry for comic relief but he should stick to economics.
Mark on 31 July 2007 at 7:23 pm
You dont see because you are one-eyed opponent of Howard govts tough stance against potential trouble makers. Obviously a bomb will have to go off under some National Treasure before the liberal-Left take terrorism seriously.
A visa is not a universal human right. It is granted to persons of good character, at the discretion of the minister.
Haneef was not exactly forthcoming to the authorities about his dodgy connections. His hasty flight under false pretexts raised a question about his character.
The association was made between his communications with other relatives close to the bombers and his suspicious actions just after the bombing, through the IM record. That would raise alarm bells in any moderately sentient being.
Pretty clearly mark et al have badly over-reached in their criticisms. They should at least acknowledge that the govt had some reasonable grounds to arrest and detain Haneef.
Revoking his visa was arguable, but not what I would call a gross ministerial abuse of power.
I love it when hc floats by to tell us what an unruly rabble is here but I suppose we are a product of all that we read.
I think it’s significant that Harry was briefly lost for words and could only blather on about “the deranged left”, etc, but now that the government has recovered its balance and issued some new diktats about how to understand the Haneef episode without committing thoughtcrime he’s happily celebrating the fact that we’re back at war with Eastasia.
Jack, yes, there were reasonable grounds to detain him. However, I think he should have been released as soon as it became clear that there were no grounds for prosecuting him, which should have been very early on.
Imre at the Oz:
If he is granted bail then so be it. The last thing this country needs is politicians buying into the legal process against the rule and law and substituting the rule of the jungle.
jack, I see you’re following Harry’s lead in endorsing uncritically the GG’s talking points.
Two things:
(a) On the 7 30 report, part of the Solicitor-General’s advice which pointed out that the word “association” was so wide that it didn’t need to encompass awareness of criminality or criminal association was highlighted – in other words, Andrews could, under the Act, have basically decided Haneef was a person of bad character merely by virtue of his familial relationship;
(b) the crap about the “Western intellegentsia” is just that.
Andrews claimed,
If that sort of stuff is not put before the court then Andrews should resign on that point alone. Where is the point of gathering evidence and not presenting it to the court.
If all this stuff Andrews was raving on about tonight have any truth then why did he allow Haneef to leave the country with his permission. Another reason to sack the Minister I would suggest.
It’s not like me to sit on the other side of the church from you, Mark, but it is worth pointing out that the standard for criminal prosecution is vastly different from the test applicable for a Minister for Immigration to assess whether a visa should be maintained.
He was released when it became apparent that there were insufficient grounds for prosecuting him (ie, by the magistrate hearing the bail application). It’s important not to confuse this with the powers of the Minister—however ill one might consider the legislative powers of the Minister to be.
Assuming we take Andrews’ latest statement at face value (a big assumption) the issues that remain are:
1. The conflict between the evidence obtained by the police and what was presented by the Crown Prosecutor to the magistrate in the bail application, a matter that raises serious questions about the procedural competence of both the AFP and the DPP;
2. Statements by Government ministers intruding into the investigative/judicial process, raising concerns about the separation of powers;
3. Whether the current laws give too much power to a politician, without adequate judicial oversight.
Mark on 31 July 2007 at 8:15 pm
Harry was having a well-justified little gloat at the discomfort the blathering liberal-Left commentariat. There is egg on the faces of those hyserical commenters who strove desperately to make out that the govts case was without foundation.
You are implying that the Minister’s actions are on a par with the totalitarian mind control of Big Brother. That is the kind of comment that turns ordinary members of the public right off and makes the Wets unsuitable for any kind of political power. Hence their decline.
The Andrews revelations are not “new diktats”. The AFP records show the minister had reasonable grounds for suspicion of terrorist conspiracy. Haneefs hasty flight consolidated those suspicions.
It is arguable whether ANdrews took his suspicions too far in revoking Haneefs visa. But everything related to suspicion of crime is arguable, as anyone who has had the misfortune to deal with lawyers knows all to well.
In any case, visas are not god-given rights. The minister has discretion and used it. Bad luck for Haneef but he should have sat tight instead of trying to flee the coop.
General community feeling is that we should err on the side of caution in terrorist matters, esp, with foreigners who have do not have full civil rights in this country. The minister is an elected official responsible to the community. He was doing his job, albeit a little zealously.
I don’t think that’s technically correct, Lomandra, as the magistrate didn’t throw out the charges (as she could have).
You and Harry can gloat all you like (and incidentally, that’s very revelatory of how seriously the right actually takes these issues – the claim is that they’re existential ones for “our way of life” etc. but actually they’re just partisan wedges). The evidence released by Andrews is perfectly susceptible of a benign interpretation, and in fact there’s nothing in it but “suspicion” to justify any belief that he did pose a danger to this country’s citizens. But if you’re happy with legislation that specifically denies natural justice and empowers suspicious Ministers, that’s alright I guess?
No I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that you and Harry just parrot the government’s talking points.
I don’t believe that there is an answer yet to this question – why was it necessary for Andrews to cancel his visa when as a condition of bail he would have had to surrender his passport? And he could still be watched by the AFP.
Please enlighten me.
New Haneef thread here.
This one’s getting very long and taking too much time to load, so I’m closing comments here, OK?