…But We Weren’t

Oct 12, 2007 | Australian Values, Border Security, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Religious Values, Terrorism, Values

…But We Weren’t

Moe Keelty – yet again

 

Let’s not mince words about Indonesia. While most of its ordinary people, at least the ones we have met, are in the range from friendly to wonderful, it has seemed to us, looking at reasonably recent history, that for the most part Moe Keelty’s Indonesian friends, the police, and their friends  – politicians, military, police, judiciary – are corrupt, ignorant, stupid, racist, bigoted and brutal.

But, you know, we knew we could be wrong.

But we weren’t.

” JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) Indonesia’s anti-terrorism chief was relaxed as he mingled with the guests on his lawn. Muslim hard-liners swapped tales of al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan and the Philippines. Convicted Bali nightclub bombers feasted on kebabs. 

Indonesian law enforcement – Moe Keelty’s friends.

Three Stooges

Oct 8, 2007 | Australian Values, Border Security, Corruption, Democracy, Immigration, Lifestyle & Life, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Terrorism, USPol, Values

Three Stooges

Howard’s 3 Stooges

 

Predictably enough, the rightwing’s stooges are being wheeled out to divert the taint of almost inevitable defeat away from John Howard.

Downer

“Larry” Downer is a self-deluding fop and a dandy. He’s a joke. But as long as he is in the cabinet he’s a dangerous joke.

He tells Australia that he has sent “a firm message” to the Burmese military thugs to tell them to stop being naughty. I bet the certifiably deranged General Than Shwe is quaking in his jackboots and is preparing to call elections and hand over power to Aung San Suu Kyi on the basis of Larry Downer’s polite finger wagging. I bet he really cares what Downer thinks.

Meanwhile as Minister for Foreign Affairs Downer has been in charge of one of the most disgraceful – and furtive – exercises in complicity with corruption, by which Australia supports – with AFP personnel – a brutal police state which ruthlessly subjugates its people – all with the help of the joke who is the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.

 

Keelty

Yes, the man who has been running the AFP assistance to the Myanmar police thugs is our favourite Stooge, “my PM right or wrong, and how else can I subvert democracy for you today, John”, “Moe” Keelty.

Keelty, who has declared war on “teh climate” for christ’s sake, and presumably won’t be satisfied until the climate is totally destroyed. Keelty, who is in bed with Indonesia in the most obscene way and who, as AFP Commissioner, complaisantly condemned stupid Australian kids to possible/probable death by firing squad surely only to please the Indonesians instead of doing the right thing and arresting them back in Australia where they would face a real justice system with some integrity. Let’s not mince words about Indonesia. While most of its ordinary people, at least the ones we have met, are in the range from friendly to wonderful, it seems to us, looking at reasonably recent history, that for the most part Moe Keelty’s Indonesian friends – its politicians, military, police and judiciary – are corrupt, ignorant, stupid, racist, bigoted and brutal. But, you know, we could be wrong.

 

Andrews

And then there’s the other Stooge, “Curly” Andrews.

Now, people ought to stop taking his latest outburst about Sudanese refugees seriously.

It was not a considered or serious position. It was not about real policy. Don’t look for justification or evidence to support his assertions. It wasn’t intended for you. It was a dog-whistle intended only for the loony right, Pauline’s mob. You can see it was intended for her lot because:

” Speaking at a Gold Coast Media Club function today, Ms Hanson said she welcomed Mr Andrews’ move, adding, “It’s been recorded in Victoria that there is a 25 per cent increase in HIV.

“There is TB, and a case of leprosy which has been recorded in South Australia.”

Ms Hanson said the federal government had a responsibility to ensure the safety of Australians.

“You can’t bring people into the country who are incompatible with our way of life and culture,” she said.

“They get around in gangs and there is escalating crime that is happening.”

Score one to Kevin Andrews and John Howard. After all, they need to bolster all the support they can get, even if it is the crazies, the filth.

Strangely enough, these claims have been made before by other racists, too.

Jingoistic Tamworth Mayor, James Treloar, tried to keep Sudanese refugees out of Tamworth earlier this year, claiming that:

” They have been before the courts on numerous charges. Of the 12 Sudanese people who live in Tamworth, eight have been before the courts for everything from dangerous driving to rape.

In an earlier post, we noted

” an uncanny similarity between [Treloar’s] claim and a 2004 British editorial claiming that,

the papers have revelled this month in reporting on court cases against asylum seekers for everything from dangerous driving to rape.

Tamworth police, however, have denied any local Sudanese people have been charged over a matter of a sexual nature.

According to Acting Police Commander, Greig Stier

“They are a very small representation, in the two years of research that I can give you, in relation to being involved with police. And the times they are involved with police are minor traffic matters, are the majority of those offences.”

[Mayor Treloar] said that

“They come from countries where there are outbreaks of TB and polio. How can we trust the department to screen those things?”

Observers noted an uncanny similarity between [Treloar’s] health scare and a claim by … Pauline Hanson, that federal parliamentary secretary for immigration, Andrew Robb, had admitted on television that the Government was letting in many ‘black South Africans’ with health issues.

[He] indicated there was around about 37 per cent of black South Africans that were coming in with ongoing health issues … “There’s increasing numbers of TB (tuberculosis) and they have picked up … it could be almost one third that actually carries TB.”

Strangely enough, people like Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich claim that

” Illegal aliens have tuberculosis and leprosy.”
“Many of them are child molesters, they’re drunk drivers and rapists and robbers.”

Gosh! It’s almost as if there’s international collusion between all these racists!

Well, we know a number of Sudanese people. In our experience we have found those we have met to be universally charming, full of life and laughter, and keen to participate and make a life in Australia. Which is extraordinary considering the circumstances which brought them here. (Quite a contrast to the stooges, Hanson and the right generally, whom we find almost universally ignorant, bigoted, nasty, hateful, judgmental and life denying.)

Only a few more sleeps and perhaps we can wake up from this nightmare.

Review of recent DIC Waving

Jul 29, 2007 | Australian Values, Border Security, Citizenship, Democracy, Immigration, Legal, OzPol Values, Values

Review of recent DIC Waving

 

A slightly different audience …

 

Some time ago, Bob Correll, the Deputy Secretary of DIC¹ , contacted us to complain that the Values Australia website

“may seriously damage Australia’s reputation overseas”

before going on to threaten us with a variety of laws.

We are sure that Bob’s people are watching, so we just wanted to ask him, “How do you think your department’s “important work” of managing Australia’s reputation overseas has been going in the last few weeks?” (I mean vis-a-vis Haneef?)

By the way, Bob, we notice that you gave a speech right in the middle of the debacle, on July 24, strangely not mentioning Mohamed Haneef. “Strangely”, because your talk was titled “Managing our shared future: the use of the visa as a whole-of-government policy tool”.

We would have thought that your master’s “use of the visa” in the Haneef matter would have been an excellent illustration of its use – “leverage” you called it – in serving government objectives.

If you don’t mind, Bob, I’ll share just a few of your observations with a slightly different audience than the one you addressed at the Government Policy Evolution conference.

“One of the clear challenges we have is to spread this leverage throughout the government, so that every relevant agency is using the visa to extract the maximum outcome and benefit for the nation as a whole.
[…]
To an extent, the visa sets the Department of Immigration and Citizenship apart in the Australian policy landscape. For instance, many Australian Government portfolios are working to achieve a range of impressive policy outcomes, through the usual methods of the Budget cycle, legislation, grants programmes and so on. Within my department, the visa gives a focus to a great deal of our work.

 

We can use the visa as a whole-of-government instrument to contribute to broader government policy objectives through the delivery of services on behalf of lead policy departments. The areas we can contribute to cross almost every aspect of the government’s economic, security, social, cultural and international responsibilities. This can be done by the conditions attached to the visa. For example, access to health and welfare services and work rights.

https://valuesaustralia.com/blog/visapolicy.jpg
You may or may not be surprised to know that the Minister for Immigration is one of the most litigated individuals in Australia — although I am pleased to note he is successful in more than 90 per cent of these cases
[…]
If this all seems theoretical then just three weeks ago the Prime Minister announced a new cross-portfolio border security initiative with the visa at it’s heart.

But Bob, our favourite line was when you said:

“the possibilities for tuning this policy tool are limited only by our policy creativity…”

Well, your Minister has certainly been creative. You go, Bob!

Really. Go

¹ Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Just Checking our MASSIVE STUFF-UP

Jul 26, 2007 | Australian Values, Border Security, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Immigration, Legal, Terrorism, Values

Just Checking our MASSIVE STUFF-UP

A note about the Haneef debacle/fallout…

 

The police and the government — notably Howard, Andrews, Downer and Ruddock (all of whom would have purple dye on their hands if they stole a briefcase instead of hijacking the brief on Haneef )  — have been constantly calling for the public and the law fraternity to “back off”, “take a cold shower”, “leave the legal process to run its course”, etc. etc.

They have been saying that the attacks on the police, the DPP and the government have been unethical, despicable and improper and compromising due legal process and the possibility of Haneef receiving a fair trial.

WE WUZ RIGHT all along and THEY WUZ SO WRONG.

There was sufficient error in the process and the handling of the case to cause serious disquiet to the very people who were calling for non-interference.

The case against Haneef is being reviewed by the DPP and the visa cancellation is being reviewed by the police.

It can’t be overstated, really, that the cancellation of Haneef’s visa by Kevin Andrews was a guilty verdict before any evidence had been tested at all, let alone in a court of law. And in fact, as Andrews said, the verdict of a court was irrelevant to his personal determination of Haneef’s guilt (by association, in fact) on the hearsay evidence of the police.

Haneef could not have had a fair trial.

If everyone had followed the police and ministerial advice, warnings and threats not to interfere, the police case would have gone unchallenged. Even in a court the purported ultra-secret police “evidence” would have gone unchallenged by the defence. We would have trusted our government’s “integrity” and meekly believed our politicians when they swore they did not have their hands in the legal till.

We were right not to trust them.

Not because Haneef is innocent – that hasn’t been tried – but because such people must never be allowed to get away with the kind of sloppy, political, vested-interest, dishonest subversion of the law in general and a bad law in particular.

Not for me. Not in my name.

Black Breath of the Nazgûl

Jul 23, 2007 | Australian Values, Border Security, Corruption, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Immigration, Legal, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Terrorism, Values, War

Black Breath of the Nazgûl

AKA Phillip Ruddock  AKA ‘Dock Vader

How dare ordinary ‘people’ have “views!” 

 

Asked on Southern Cross radio whether the case was a mess, he replied:
“No, what I think has happened is that people who have views about the nature of the law are determined to try and bring it into disrepute. That’s what I think is happening.”

Yes, that is exactly what is happening in some quarters.

Those who believe that they own the law and that the law is a tool for re-election, or for legal validation of unethical and immoral policy, or for the pursuit of personal agendas, are certainly bringing it into disrepute.

Elsewhere, what is happening is that — by revealing information about the way the law is being used and abused, and by debating processes and procedures — people who care about the law and its already tenuous relationship with “justice” are illustrating how the law is a bad law, how the law is being used disreputably and how the law in general is being debauched by the government and its stooges.

For your interest, if any, here are the relevant sections of the Crimes Act that relate to Haneef’s charge:

102.7 Providing support to a terrorist organisation…..

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person intentionally provides to an organisation support or resources that would help the organisation engage in an activity described in paragraph (a) of the definition of terrorist organisation in this Division; and(b) the organisation is a terrorist organisation; and(c) the person is reckless as to whether the organisation is a terrorist organisation.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 15 years.

_________________
terrorist organisation means:

(a) an organisation that is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act occurs); or
(b) an organisation that is specified by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph (see subsections (2), (3) and (4)).

_________________

“member” of an organisation includes:

(a) a person who is an informal member of the organisation; and

(b) a person who has taken steps to become a member of the organisation; and

(c) in the case of an organisation that is a body corporate–a director or an officer of the body corporate.

_________________

terrorist act means an action or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (3); and

(b) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and (c) the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:

(i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or

(ii) intimidating the public or a section of the public.

_________________
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(b) causes serious damage to property; or

(c) causes a person’s death; or(

d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or

(e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or(

f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to:

(i) an information system; or

(ii) a telecommunications system; or

(iii) a financial system; or

(iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or

(v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or

(vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

(3) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and

(b) is not intended:

(i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

(ii) to cause a person’s death; or

(iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or

(iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.

Note that the law clearly requires you to satisfy yourself  that any person to whom you render a service or a “resource” which may conceivably assist a member of a terrorist organisation to perform, or conceive, or plan, or prepare, or assist a terrorist act — a packet of nails, say, or a bottle of Ammonia, or a map, or a tank of petrol — is not a member of a terrorist organisation. And the evidentiary burden that you took sufficient steps to satisfy yourself of this probably rests with you.

Luckily for the government, it could be argued (although we don’t) that the Government itself would be guilty of a “threat made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause”, “coercing, or influencing by intimidation”, “intimidating the public or a section of the public” if it weren’t for subsection (3).

On the other hand, it could also be argued, surely (although we don’t), that the government’s invasion of Iraq was intended “to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person and to cause a person’s death, and to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action” (who was safe in Canberra), and “to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public” (at least the Iraqi public).

Pardon Us – We Missed the Logic

Jul 17, 2007 | Australian Values, Border Security, Corruption, Democracy, Immigration, Legal, OzPol Values, Values

Pardon Us – We Missed the Logic

We’re just a bit confused 

 

Dr Haneef has been charged with recklessly providing resources to a terrorist organisation (to wit, a sim card). The alleged recklessness occurred in the UK. It did not take place in Australia.

There is no suggestion, as far as we can know, that Haneef has broken any law in Australia.

No-one in Britain has yet been found guilty of being a terrorist or part of a “terrorist organisation”.

The British allegations are still ‘allegations’.

The charge against Haneef therefore presumes the British suspects are guilty and that they are, or are part of, a terrorist organisation. 

They may well be, but that is not how the law in both our countries is supposed to work. Australia, in any case, simply cannot, has no authority to, determine the guilt or innocence of a person in a foreign jurisdiction. That is done by courts and juries in the jurisdiction where they are charged. Or can they? It does seem, logically, that they have indeed predetermined that guilt given the charge against Haneef.

This presumption of guilt then would/will prejudice the trial of Haneef’s cousin to whom he gave the sim card. Could Haneef’s cousin conceivably claim the impossibility of a fair trial on the basis of the charges against Haneef?

And what then, or what if the British suspects are simply found not guilty? Haneef could not then be found to have provided resources to a terrorist organisation. (And before you say “that’s not going to happen, of course they are guilty”, remember that you are not entitled to presume that, nor to act on the presumption of guilt.)

The correct course of action after Haneef’s interrogation, which involved a British police officer, was surely to allow the British to use any information that was discovered to request the extradition of Haneef to Britain. As far as we know they have made no such request. If they had thought that there was sufficient evidence to justify such a request, they would have made it, wouldn’t they, the alleged offence having been committed in the British jurisdiction?

Why does all this matter? Is it to protect terrorists? Absolutely not.

It is that, as we have already noted, if we wish to protect our own liberty and freedom we must also protect the rights of our enemies. If we do not we establish a precedent that will come back to bite us. If we do not honour and cherish our own legal values – like justice, due process, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence – then we practise and invite the practice of oppression in all our lives and we become as oppressive as the regimes and ideologies from which we seek to protect ourselves, using the threat of those odious regimes as an excuse.

If, of course, you were Mick [“Let’s show those drug-running kids some real Indonesian-style ‘Life or Death’ justice”] Keelty and his mates, you might just think that it was a bugger that the law gets in the way of justice. And that’s our system.

And we’ll tell you what. We don’t want Mick Keelty to protect us, or John Howard, or Kevin Andrews.

We want our system, our values and our way of life to protect us.