DIC to the Rescue!

Jul 25, 2007 | Australian Values, Citizenship, Corruption, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Humour, Legal, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

DIC to the Rescue!

Life-Hack: How to satisfy yourself!

  

We reported yesterday [Black Breath of the Nazgûl] that the terrorist legislation implicitly requires you to satisfy yourself that anyone to whom you provide a service, item or product of any kind —

 which might conceivably be deemed at some future time to be a “resource” which might conceivably be used in a terrorist act by a terrorist or a terrorist organisation, or what might conceivably be deemed a terrorist organisation, at some indeterminate time in the future –

 you are required, as we say, to satisfy yourself that the person or organisation to whom you provide such a “resource” is not, or may not in the future turn out possibly to be, a terrorist or terrorist organisation.

 It is of no interest to the AFP, the DPP, the Minister for DIC, or the Nazgûl, whether you provide the resource in Australia or overseas, or whether the ‘terrorist act’ is, or may, occur in Australia or some other, crappy, country (like England).

 Nor do you have to be an Australian citizen.

 If you are in Australia now, whatever crappy other country you came from, you can be charged with anything you did anywhere in the world which resulted in an unfortunate and unforseeable outcome  — again, anywhere in the world.

 Naturally this has alarmed many people who wish to carry on business, and normal social and commercial intercourse with their other human beings including family, with the least amount of disruption.

 How, for example, in the event that you are ‘visited’ by the AFP, can you convince them that you were not “reckless” concerning the terroristic nature, dark inner thoughts, connections and intentions of everyone to whom you give or sell something?

 How, that is, are you expected to satisfy yourself that someone to whom you give or sell anything is not a terrorist or a member of a terrorist organisation? And how are you to satisfy yourself that the person could or would not find some nefarious way to put your innocent “resource” to some dastardly use?

 Well…

 It is apparent that the Govermint has been taking heed of the warnings of Values Australia!  The Department of Mateship has come to the rescue! It has produced the simple Form 1984 which you can give to your prospective giftee or customer to fill out while they wait.

DIC understands that this may result in some delays at, say, Bunnings checkouts but points out that it’s all for your own good and that safety and security are far more important than your personal sense of entitlement to such trivialities as freedom, liberty and other so-called “rights”.

 The government will keep you safe no matter what it costs you!

 This form is all you need to ensure that you cannot be charged with being “reckless” as to whether the person is a terrorist or a member of a terrorist organisation. Never mind whether the person lies on the form. The form itself is sufficient. A bureaucratically measurable tick in a box beats reality hands down every time.

 Ideas: Put a pile of Form 1984s on your counter, pre-ticked for efficiency.

And if you’re travelling overseas on a working holiday, take a bunch of Form 1984s  with you just in case.

 View Form 1984 here

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).

Brave Role Models – Leading from Behind

Jul 21, 2007 | Australian Values, Democracy, OzPol Values, USPol, Values, War

Brave Role Models – Leading from Behind


Pressing Personal Reasons

 

Those who believe so strongly that Australia ought to be in Iraq and ought to stay there “until the job is done” (leaving aside the problem that no-one has ever explained exactly what “the job” is, or how we will be able to tell that it is “done”) – people such as all members of the Young Liberals and Young Nationals who barrack for the war, as well as John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello (fair dinkum), Alexander John Gosse Downer (no bullshit), Philip Maxwell Ruddock, Anthony Chisholm Abbott, Brendan John Nelson – ought to lead from the front.

If you truly believe in the sacred value of your cause, fight for it yourself, not by proxy – enlist, go to Iraq and fight the heathen devils over there (meanwhile taking every care to defend our oil).

It’s a mystery to us that so few of the most strident supporters of the war are prepared to serve in it, and that so many of them have such pressing personal reasons and medical conditions that regretfully force them to deprive the Iraqi people of their courageous presence in that country.

If our great leaders and courageous role models go to Iraq, they may be lucky enough not to be one of the (at least) 12.5% of Iraq war veterans who return from Iraq suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

That is what Keith Olbermann is calling for Bush to do:

 

“Go to Baghdad now and fulfill, finally, your military service obligations. Go there and fight, your war. Yourself.”

You can be charged for what you did today…

Jul 18, 2007 | Australian Values, Democracy, Immigration, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

You can be charged for what you did today…

 

So here’s what Haneef was formally charged with on 14 July 2007, as revealed by Tony Jones on Lateline on Tuesday night:

“…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”.

1.   “intentionally providing resources”
I went to the bank today. They intentionally provided me with resources.
I bought a sandwich at lunchtime and was intentionally provided with that resource.
Some months ago I bought a mobile phone. The mobile shop assistant intentionally provided me with that resource, and with a sim-card.

2.   “a terrorist organisation”
No-one, least of all Haneef, has yet been charged, either here or in Britain, with being a member of a terrorist organisation. Sabeel Ahmed, the second-cousin to whom Haneef gave the sim-card, has not been charged with being a member of a terrorist organisation.
There is no terrorist organisation yet established by British charges. It is an imputation and it is an improper imputation.

3.   “being reckless as to whether the organisation was a terrorist organisation”
This is extraordinary.

Firstly, “whether the organisation” presumes that Haneef’s cousins were –  and that Haneef knew they were – an “organisation”.

I suppose your family is “an organisation” in some sense of the word.

He is not charged that he knew they were a terrorist organisation, which he cannot be accused of since the British have not even charged the “organisation” with being a terrorist organisation and any such “terrorist organisation” would have to be established in a British court.

Haneef is not charged with recklessly providing resources to a terrorist organisation. He is charged with being reckless as to whether  the “organisation” — which has not been established in law — was a terrorist organisation.

How can he be charged with being reckless as to whether or not he was providing resources to a terrorist organisation, if not even the British, let alone Australia, know or have yet shown whether it is one or not?

 

The whole thing does not make sense.

However, the inference which must unavoidably be drawn is this:

My sandwich shop assistant and bank teller and mobile phone shop assistant were reckless today in providing resources to me without considering whether I might or might not be part of a terrorist organisation.

They asked me no questions in this respect at all.

You probably provided services, resources, to numerous people today and you did this with reckless disregard as to whether or not they were terrorists or constituted part of a terrorist organisation.

If you provided resources of any sort which the AFP might decide to deem to be “resources”, then you, and I, and almost all of us could be charged with exactly the same “offence” as Haneef, remembering that it is not necessary that such an “organisation” need be proved to exist in any jurisdiction. Or to be a proscribed organisation at all. It is enough for Mick Keelty or the AFP generally, or Philip Ruddock, or Kevin Andrews, merely to think it might be or could be. Or want it to be.

Seriously, given the right set of circumstances you could be charged at any time for doing what everyone does every day.

Ruddock, true to form, waffled and sidetracked and failed to answer questions. Asked about the “section 503A protected information” on the basis of which apparently Andrews cancelled Haneef’s visa, Ruddock could not – would not – say that the information which is not available to Haneef or his lawyers is inadmissible in court.

So Haneef has no rights to challenge the secret information on which he is detained and accused.

And neither do we Australians have the right to make our own judgment on that information.

We can on these grounds have little doubt that the game in play is a coalition re-election exercise.

Well, “this dog don’t hunt”.

So please save us from the Howards and Ruddocks and Andrewses saying one more time, “Trust me, I’m a politician”.

And for christs sake, when will the Labor Party stand up for what’s right for once?

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.

Haneef, Whores, ‘Howard with Hair’

Jul 16, 2007 | Australian Values, Citizenship, Democracy, Immigration, Legal, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

Haneef, Whores, ‘Howard with Hair’

 

“This glorious fat trout of an election godsend…”

 

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”,
~  Thomas Paine, great American patriot 

In March 2007, Deputy Secretary, Bob Correll, of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIC) wrote to Values Australia, charging that Values Australia was offensive and could “seriously damage” Australia’s international reputation.

Values Australia responded that DIC’s “callous disregard for humanity, basic morality and decency…have resulted all by themselves in immeasurably more damage to Australia’s reputation than the Values Australia website could possibly do…”, enumerating some of the more egregious examples.

We now say that DIC is at it again, with Haneef.

Former New South Wales Liberal Party leader John Dowd QC says Australia’s reputation is at stake after the Federal Government’s action.

Mr Dowd says the international community will now be questioning Australia’s credibility after the government’s move.

“This is a high-profile international series of cases,” he said.

“People in other television stations – the Al Jazeeras and so on – that go to millions of people throughout the world, are going to know that in Australia, the executive comes in and takes people into custody, even after the courts have allowed them out.”

  

Here is what we think:

The government is blatantly using Mohammed Haneef to push its – now desperate – re-election agenda.

Many MSM commentators claim AFP Commissioner, Mick Keelty, is dead straight, “meticulous” and so on. We, on the other hand, can understand how people might think that the AFP has been irreparably politicised and is doing John Howard’s bidding.

Keelty is reported to have stressed that Haneef must be considered to be innocent unless proved guilty.

Of course.

Some time ago Haneef gave his mobile phone sim card to a second cousin who is somehow implicated in the alleged, failed London-Glascow bombing attempts. Even Keelty says “the specific allegation involves recklessness rather than intention”.

This raises the question of how vulnerable ordinary Australians may be if they, for example, inadvertently do something, meet or assist someone in some way who later turns out to be a criminal. That homeless person, for example, you gave a dollar to for “a cup of coffee”. What if it turns out he is a terrorist in disguise? Does the law now allow for a prison term of 15 years for that “reckless”, inadvertent act of charity? It seems to.

Nevertheless, as Keelty claims, Haneef should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

And apparently that is exactly how the AFP and the government felt until some maverick magistrate who didn’t understand the main game applied the law instead of the politics to the matter.

She granted bail!

This did not fit the game plan. This was an embarrassment, surely. 

After so long grilling the man – this glorious fat trout of an election godsend, this putative terrorist from whom John Howard wants us all to think he is so bravely protecting us – it turns out he was merely ‘reckless’ and not at all intending to terrorise anyone.

The AFP had no more admissible information, had no further charges to lay, it appears, and so the man was released on bail.

How could John Howard look brave and grave and fatherly and win back the love of his (newly) frightened people when the boogeyman was apparently just…reckless.

It had to be made bigger. This, after all, might be the government’s last throw of the dice.

The AFP had been made to look bad, the government too.

So did the AFP whisper, like Grima Wormtongue, in the ear of the Minister for DIC about information that was inadmissible in court and which was insufficient for any charge to be laid about this reckless Indian – information which the Minister for DIC never has to reveal and which therefore can never be tested?

It was enough for the Minister for DIC (and Re-Electing the PM) to revoke his visa and bravely consign him to one of DIC’s finest helliday camps.

If people of questionable character ought to be in detention, surely most of the Government front bench would be checking themselves into the nearest DIC concentration camp.

It won’t work, of course.

The coalition will lose the election.

Howard will lose his seat.

And all they will be left with is a shattered life, sacrificed to their pride.

But what of Labor?

They’ll come storming in like the cavalry to save the day.

Won’t they?

No.

It is now clear that Labor policy is “me too, only moreso”. They are gutless and as shallow and self-serving as the other mob – unless we insist that they take up the real challenge, the real reason we want a change, which is to restore decency and to honour true Australian values.

If Labor is indistinguishable from the coalition, if Rudd is merely Howard-with-hair, why vote for them? 

They are turning into the worst disappointment since Latham.