Bhutto

Dec 27, 2007 | Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Religious Values, Terrorism, Values

Bhutto

It wasn’t such a surprise, we suppose, but Benazir Bhutto’s reported assassination, while it saddens us as another display of humanity’s inability to grow up, confirms our contempt for religion in general and that one in particular.

Let those who constantly proselytise for their imaginary friends in the sky now loudly proclaim again how religion is the only source of morality and ethical living and how preferable it is to the evil godlessness of thoughtful, rational choices made on the basis of the verifiably real world, human needs and human relationships.

We haven’t had any particular opinion about Bhutto. We have read and heard both that she was charismatic and Pakistan’s only hope and that she was completely corrupt and as Prime Minister would be the worst possible thing to happen to Pakistan.

We simply don’t know.

We don’t think it matters.

Pakistan is a toilet, a disaster. It always has been. It is not just corrupt. It is, irretrievably, Corruption itself. And yes, we’ve been there.

It has no foreseeable hope of redemption and advancement until it gets rid of its religious madmen and its military loonies.

And that’s not going to happen.

No half-rational, half-intelligent politician, let alone an honest one, is now going to take the country on.

Sane people prefer to live.

Lex Australia

Dec 8, 2007 | Australian Values, Border Security, Citizenship, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Immigration, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

Lex Australia

 

Came across an old post at Gavin Putland’s Leges Dubiae blog which coincides with what we tried to say way back when Haneef was the name on everyone’s lips.

Given the change of government and all, it seems timely to question this preposterous example of the legislative legacy of the Howard years.

It wasn’t so much about the guilt or innocence of Haneef, or the appalling mismanagement of the case by the Federal Police under the even more appallingly incompetent and bloody Mick Keelty. It was that the law under which Haneef was arrested and charged was stupid, or, as Putland puts it, “dubious”. Haneef is not a citizen of Australia and the act for which he was charged (giving his Sim Card to someone “with reckless disregard” for whether that person was a terrorist) was carried out in another country.

The whole idea is ludicrous. Putland says:

” Although the Statute of Westminster gave the Australian Parliament the power to make laws with “extra-territorial operation”, it has always been understood that such operation would affect only Australian citizens. By charging Haneef, Australia is now asserting the power to make laws binding on non-Australians outside Australia.”

As Alex Downer would have said, “That’s pwepostewous!” (God, don’t we miss him already?)

The problem even goes further.

This is what Haneef was charged with:

” intentionally providing resources to a terrorist organisation consisting of persons including Sabeel Ahmed and Kafeel Ahmed, his cousins, being reckless as to whether the organisation was a terrorist organisation”

This pre-empts British law, since the British have never charged either Ahmed brother with being a member of a “terrorist organisation”, and such an assertion, had it even been made, has never been tested in a court whether British or Australian. (Indeed, it was not even legally established or legally asserted at the time that the incident was a “terrorist act”.) Nevertheless, the Australian Federal Police, by making the charge under the extra-territorial powers of the you beaut Ruddock/Keelty legislation, arrogated the pre-eminence of Australian law over British law. That is just plain dumb.

The Lex Romana was intended (we appear to recall from long ago) to simplify and organise all the laws for all people under Rome’s sway. It is said to be Rome’s most important, lasting and unique gift to the world.

But now if Australia can make laws for the whole of the rest of the world – not just , Australians, Australia and its territories – and if every other nation, therefore, can also, with equal justification, make laws for everyone in the world, then we have a little more confusion than was intended by the codification of Roman law.

Saudi Arabia, for example, could take Australia’s example and under its extraterritorial powers impose Sharia law on non-Saudis living in Australia (i.e. most of us). It could then apply for extradition to Saudi Arabia of anyone it had reason to believe had committed adultery, say, so that they could be stoned to death – or perhaps just the women, in Sharia’s very civilised and enlightened way.

Yes, it sounds like a joke but it’s not. The law is a joke. But this joke of a law was seriously applied to Mohamed Haneef and threatened to send him to prison in Australia for fifteen very serious years.

And you know, the terrible irony is that the law was written (so hastily and so abominably poorly) with only one purpose in mind – the re-election of the Howard government…….

Oops!

The law is even worse and more stupid than this and you can read more of what we said in July. And here is a distillation of the relevant sections of the law under which Haneef was charged.

In a nutshell, the law means that:

if anyone, whether Australian or not, anywhere in the world, sells, shares, or gives any thing or any service, to anyone anywhere in the world, and they do not take reasonable and verifiable steps to assure themselves that the person to whom they provide the thing or service is not [or could not at some indeterminate time in the future be deemed to be] a terrorist or part of a terrorist organisation and they do not take reasonable steps to assure themselves that the person (or organisation) could not use it or plan to use it in any way as part of a terrorist act then they may be found guilty of the same crime that Haneef was charged with and spend fifteen years in prison.

So of course it’s ridiculous. But it’s no joke.

And it is still Australian law.

Passionate Indifference

Nov 17, 2007 | Australian Values, Capital Punishment, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Religious Values, Values, War

Passionate Indifference

Indonesian war crime 

 

” N SW Deputy Coroner, Dorelle Pinch, this week found that the newsmen known as the Balibo Five were deliberately killed by Indonesian forces 32 years ago to cover up the Indonesian invasion of East Timor.

 

She has recommended that the Federal Attorney-General consider prosecuting those responsible, including military commander turned politician Yunus Yosfiah.

Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says any information referred to him by the coroner will be passed on to the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

Mr Ruddock says it is not his role to assess whether any offence has been committed, as the AFP are responsible for war crimes investigations and the DPP is responsible for prosecuting anyone charged.

Quite. And you would be entitled to expect that since it doesn’t have to do with secretly imprisoning Australians or incarcerating refugees the Nâzgul would have difficulty whipping himself into a frenzy of indifference about war crimes and injustice.

So why not do the obvious thing and palm the whole thing off onto the Indonesians’ friend, the notoriously inept Keelty and a DPP with a track record of getting the big questions wrong?

Luckily, the A-G will be toast (qua A-G) by Sunday and hopefully the Commissioner will do the decent thing and follow his masters into political oblivion.

Howard made the standard Howard-weasel-words flick-off: “I want to study what the coroner has said. I take what he [sic] said seriously. It was a tragic event and we will treat the coroner’s report seriously as it should be and if there’s anything we need to do, we will do it.”

And who would be deciding whether there was anything he needed to do? Why, he him very self! Standard plausible deniability. “Of course I didn’t lie. I said we would do anything we needed to, and we have determined there was nothing we needed to do, so we didn’t.”

Downer helped by explaining how it would be all too hard.

Rudd has been slightly more positive – “those responsible should be held to account” – but still leaving it up to someone else.

Then there’s the Indonesians. “Just because we love the death penalty and call it part of our “positive laws”, doesn’t mean we like killing people…oh, except Australians. Oh, and the Timorese. Oh, and the West Papuans.”

Hopefully we won’t leave it all to the corruption, ignorance, racism, bigotry and brutality of the Indonesian glitterati – its politicians, military, police, judiciary and religious leaders.

The Front Fell Off

Nov 16, 2007 | Australian Values, Corruption, Economic Values, Humour, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Science Values, Terrorism, Values

The Front Fell Off

All the sage analysts and opinionators, as well as the “’King Makers‘” – as News Ltd “’journalist’s” like to refer to themselves – seem to be agreed that there is a mood for change in the electorate. They agree that it’s not really about John Howard blowing it, as much as that after twelve years people want a change. It’s not that they dislike Howard, they say, but that they’re bored with him.

Values Australia begs to differ.

We assert that a large percentage of people have actively disliked Howard for most of his twelve years, and particularly in the last six.

It seems to us that Beazley wasn’t it. Nice enough bloke and all but he didn’t have the guts to chest up to Howard. Crean was a joke, frankly. Latham was, well, clearly a fruitcake, they thought. And yet almost anyone would have done, except that they had to be able to be credible enough to manage some pretty important stuff.

So along comes Kevin Rudd at last and everyone holds their breath hoping and praying that ‘Neo’ Rudd is “The One”. And Rudd does stand firm enough and plausible enough, and he has more than held his own against Howard for long enough. The people decided months ago. The election result was decided as soon as Rudd looked safely electable.

The country is already heaving a sigh of relief that it finally looks as if it is about to be able to cut loose John Howard and his corrosive regime.

What we are now seeing of Howard is that he is not after all the political genius he has been reputed to be. We are seeing Howard ‘unplugged’ – unplugged from Arthur Sinodinis who was the real genius.

Howard solo.

So Rudd, in a way, can’t take too much credit for his own success except for being good enough.

Whateverrr.

Anyway, we were just chatting amongst ourself and wondering whether on Sunday morning 25 November, Brian Dawe might interview John Howard about how his Front Fell Off.

He’s done it before.

Well, we dare to hope.

UPDATE

Well, the front really has fallen off. Tony Abbott has revealed all about WorkChoices.

” I accept that certain ‘protections’, in inverted commas, are not what they were, I accept that that has largely gone. I accept that,” he said.

“I accept that the ‘Industrial Relations Commission’ doesn’t have the same power to reach into the nook and crannies of every ‘business’ that it used to have.”

We knew that, actually. That’s one of the reasons why the coalition is so unpopular.

But we do appreciate the birth of a new euphemism.

“The best ‘protection’ for someone who’s unhappy in their current job is the chance of a new one,” said Abbott.

No more ‘down-sizing’, ‘right-sizing’, ‘reorganisation’, ‘rationalisation’, ‘surplus to requirements’, or ‘changes to production’; no more “letting you go, Wayne”.

We now look forward to hearing employers telling their staff, “We’re excited to be able to offer you the chance of a new job, Frank.” Or, “Beryl, we’re happy to say we’ve arranged some excellent job protection for you!”

So John, we’re delighted to announce we’ve arranged the chance of a new job for you. We’re sure you’ll appreciate this is the kind of protection you could only dream of.

In other news…

“Don’t forget to be frightened about those evil sand-niggers!”

On television last night the National Security Hotline commercial was on TV.

8 days away from a ‘federal election’.

Originally badged as “Authorised by the Australian Government Canberra” it is now authorised “M Keelty, Chief Commissioner, Australian Federal Police“.

Can there be any more transparently cynical attempt by Howard to get around the election advertising laws to blow the anti-muslim dogwhistle?

In fact, is it actually legal for them to do this?

And can there any longer possibly be any question that the appalling, scandal-ridden, utterly discredited and totally compromised Keelty is irredeemably politicised – in fact has offered himself up to the political game by his own choice?

Trust Me…I’m From the Feds…

Nov 14, 2007 | Australian Values, Citizenship, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Immigration, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Terrorism, Values

Trust Me…I’m From the Feds…

 

Wha..!? I woun’t not of never of dun nuffink so bad like wot you say!

 

Federal agent Bruce Pegg, who interviewed Mr Ul-Haque in prison, told NSW Supreme Court judge Michael Adams he had done nothing improper by questioning Mr Ul-Haque without a caution.

” Why didn’t you caution him when you were going to ask him questions which were capable of exposing him to a criminal charge?” Justice Adams asked him.

 

“There was no intention in my mind of using that conversation in any proceedings against Mr Ul-Haque,” Agent Pegg said.

 

Justice Adams: “It would rather depend on what he told you, wouldn’t it?”

Thank christ for judges like Adams.

Supposedly Ul-Haque declined the kind offer to wear a wire to attempt to incriminate another person. He had an opinion about that, he told an AFP officer, who allegedly said:

“Well you know what they say about opinions: opinions are like arseholes; everyone’s got one.”

And you know what they say about arseholes: Mick Keelty’s got thousands of them. That’s how he shits on Australia. 

Justice Adams said ASIO officers

“committed the criminal offences of false imprisonment and kidnapping.”

When do they go to prison?

Have they been arrested and charged yet?
Where are they being detained?
Are they being pursued and prosecuted by the AFP with the same vigour and determination that it showed against…oh, I don’t know…Mohamed Haneef, say?

Dear Bob Correll

Nov 13, 2007 | Australian Values, Border Security, Citizenship, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Immigration, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Values

Dear Bob Correll

 

To: Mr Bob Correll,
Deputy Secretary
Department of Immigration and Censorship

 

Dear Bob,

Bob, you aren’t replying to any of my messages. Is everything all right? I thought we had something really special for a while.

Bob, you wrote to me earlier this year, explaining to me all about “Australia’s reputation overseas”, of which you were clearly most protective. You talked about “the important business managed by the Department, including the processing of visa applications”.

But now, Bob, this shocking news; I’m having trouble working out how it all fits with what you have said.

Bob apparently, according to the scurrilous Mainstream Media , in 1999 your department detained a certain Tony Tran in a breach of the necessary procedure which requires your department to notify a person that their bridging visa has been cancelled, before, in fact, locking them up.

Now, I know that you are the go-to guy about visas and their clever use as a tool of government policy, so I know that you will have been appalled — appalled !— at this oversight when you found out about it. And you will have been terribly upset that the said Tony Tran was bashed by another inmate while enduring his five years of illegal detention at the hands of your important department.

Of course, we can all understand that your department can’t be held to blame – or to account – for Tran’s broken marriage, or his separation from his baby son for … how long? Just because Tran says,

“I never got to say goodbye and I never got to kiss my son”,

I mean, we need a sense of perspective, don’t we?

After all, your department has lots of really “important business” to manage which takes precedence over the human concerns of mere “people”; important business such as making stirring speeches at expensively-catered conferences for the high-flying and influential; speeches with impressive titles like 

‘Managing our shared future: the use of the visa as a whole-of-government policy tool’[!], or

‘Enhancing ethics and governance while transforming the business[!]’.

“The business”, Bob?

It’s “a business“?

Does the Department consider what it does to unfortunate, desperate refugees as “giving them the business”, perhaps?

Ah, yes. Now we remember!

It was you yourself who was able to turn unemployment into just such a “business“.

A business is not about people, is it.

It’s about “Outcomes” and “”, “Deliverables” and perhaps your favourite, “Compliance”.

A business has the wonderful ability to remove those pesky “human beings” from the equation almost entirely.

Well done!

No wonder John Howard and Kevo Andrews love you!

Bob, I understand now what you meant about ‘the important business managed by the Department’.

And, look, I know it may not look so generous in hindsight, that thing about changing Tony’s baby’s name to a more Korean-sounding one so he could be deported to Korea. It might look somewhat … I don’t know … callous? … cruel and heartless? … unbelievably inhumane? … to some.

But I’m sure that in some way which, in our ignorance, mere people like myself can’t grasp, “Australia’s reputation overseas” has been immeasurably enhanced by this episode.

By the way, I have discovered your website. I like its design very much and would really like one just like it for my very own one day.

Anyway, I came across a page called “Success Stories of Australian Migration”. And I searched and searched but I couldn’t find anything there about Tony Tran! Nor could I discover anything about Vivian Solon or Cornelia Rau, or about Robert Jovocic.

Nothing at all.

Odd, I thought, when they were all examples of success stories of your Department’s important business.

On a personal note, Bob, I just noticed you have five kids! Geez, mate, bit of a stud, eh! Eh? How do you fit them all in the Volvo?

Just, you know, Bob mate, keep your eye on them. Please. You wouldn’t want them being renamed and packed off to some strange country before you’ve had a chance to kiss them goodbye. Would you?

P.S. How’s the job-hunting going? You’ve only got a couple of weeks.

… Oh, Bob, I’ve just been informed that Tran’s case was only one of more than 200 others in which the Ombudsman has determined people have been unlawfully detained, just like Tony Tran. That really is some success story for your department and its important work.

Don’t you agree all these cases really ought to be shown on your beaut website? It seems you might be required to front a Royal Commission if Labor succeeds in a few days. That would be exciting for you, wouldn’t it!