Draft Mateship Guidelines Exhumed

Aug 26, 2007 | Arts, Australian Values, Citizenship, Democracy, Immigration, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Religious Values, Values, War

Draft Mateship Guidelines Exhumed

Fair Dinkum Aussie Mateship Cetrificate Test

 

A new Mateship test will ensure Australia strikes the right balance between the British and the rest, says Minister for Aussie Mateship, Smeagol K. Dic.

The Ministry today released a draft guide detailing what it regards as the essential Australian values every aspirationally nationalistic citizen must embrace.

In order to become a citizen, New Australians will need to correctly answer at least 75 out of 100 questions, such as “what were the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act”.

“One of the great achievements of Australia has been to balance two things: Firstly the diversity of people that have come from more than 200 countries around the world and secondly, the opportunity to pit them against each other in the run-up to an election,” Mr Dic told reporters in Kogarah.

“This is part of the government’s desire to balance their pathetic gratitude for being allowed to stay here for a time, and the fear of terrorism which we may whip up from time to time – both of which will help to ensure our re-election.”

“Multiculturalism has been doing so well all on its own without very much government intervention at all”, said Dic, “that we thought we ought to put our oar in and fix it. If we manage not to stuff it up, we can take credit for it. If we screw it up we can claim it doesn’t work and we can go back to just importing Brits, the way we used to.”

Migrants would also need to demonstrate an adequate level of understanding of the Liberal/National policy platform if they were to realise their aspirational nationalism and if they wanted to stay here for that little bit longer before being shipped back to their hell-hole countries full of gibberish-speaking foreigners, Dic said.

“The rich tapestry of Australia today, a reflection of our diversity, has always been a problem for the Liberals and especially the National Party, and we have done all we can to put a stop to it” he said. “We tried Pauline Hanson and her policies but that only worked for one election. We had the Mayor of Tamworth try to spike it by branding desperate Sudanese refugees from Dafur as leprous, TB and AIDS-carrying, thieving, car-crashing childmolesters. But the town took the side of the refos and rolled our man. We’ve stood by as some of the diversity drowned trying to get here, and if they got here, we sent them to South Pacific paradises or to exclusive desert resorts for special education programs in the Australian government’s policy positions. But still they keep coming. So if they have to come, they have to learn to be just like us,” said Dic.

Asked why the “values” document, to be given to aspirational New Australians, lacked any meaningful reference to Aboriginal history, culture or values, with only four sentences to cover perhaps 60,000 years, Mr Dic said, “I think in a booklet like this you have to get your priotities right. I mean, who cares, right? Do they vote for us? No.”

Among the values laid out in the document are tolerance and compassion, freedom of speech and a respect for Australia’s British heritage.

Examples of the government’s tolerance and compassion can be found in reports of the death count in the Iraq war.

Australian’s respect for Britain can be seen in the attitude of most Australians to the English cricket team.

The Australian government’s tolerance and its attitude to free speech are demonstrated by its recent amendments to Wikipedia, and its action to kindly inform Values Australia in March that if it didn’t pull the site down it would send it to gaol on the basis of a variety of laws. This was in addition to its actually closing down a parody site of the Prime Minister. Aspirational immigrants need to understand that by “free speech” the government means you can say anything you like, anything at all, that agrees with the government and does not hurt its feelings.

TAKE THE VALUES AUSTRALIA MATESHIP TEST

Values Australia has prepared a special alternative Mateship Test which we defy any Australian politician or fat-arsed bureaucrat to take and pass, particularly the Minister for Dic and his silly pen-pushers.

Take it yourself. Use it for trivia nights. Many of the answers are on the Values Australia website.

PASS MARK: 75%
TIME ALLOWED: 2 HOURS

1. Who was the Father of Federation?

2. What were the real reasons the Australian colonies decided to become a federation?

a. What was New Zealand’s status before Australian federation?

3. List all the Prime Ministers of Australia in order, with their years in office.

4. What does Australia Day celebrate?

a. When was the first Australia Day?

b. What happened on the first Australia Day?

5. Who was Chips Rafferty?

a. Was he really gay?

6. Which was the only Australian State not to receive convicts?

7. Name the complete Australian Ashes Test squad from the 1948 England tour.

a. What was the team’s nickname?

8. How far is it from Sydney to Melbourne (to the nearest 10km)

9. What was the basis for the Crown to assume ownership of Australia?

a. What did it mean?

b. Was it correct?

10. Why can the Australian Prime Minister or Parliament not apologise to its indigenous peoples?

11. Were there ever any massacres (or mass killings) of indigenous people in Australia?

12. Did anyone ever take unwilling Aboriginal children from their families?

a. If they had, what would the institutions have been called which carried out these operations (if any)?

b. Did they live up to their name?

13. What has always been the general legal presumption in the Australian justice system if someone is accused of or charged with a crime?

14. According to recently proclaimed Australian laws, what is the basis upon which suspected terrorists are held?

a. What does this mean for justice in Australia and for ordinary, law-abiding Australian citizens?

15. What does the Government presume, and say, about David Hicks?

16. Habeas corpus is a fundamental of the Australian legal system. What does it mean?

17. When is Federation Day?

a. What year was the first Federation Day?

18. What is the correct spelling? “Color”, or “Colour”?

19. Two famous Australians travelled on the 1908-9 Shackleton expedition to which continent?

a. Who were they?

b. Together, they were the first to achieve which two feats?

c. Which of them is/was on the $100 note?

d. The other had an avenue named after him in Sydney. What is its name and in which suburb is it?

20. After whom is the mineral davidite named?

21. Who was the skipper of the first Australian yacht to win the America’s Cup?

a. Who was the designer?

b. What was the name of the boat?

c. In what year did it win?

d. What did the Prime Minister of the day famously say when the boat won?

e. What was the Prime Minister’s name?

22. Have there ever been Jewish Governors General of Australia?

a. If your answer is yes, what was their name(s) and in what years did he/she/they “govern”?

23. Has there ever been a female Governor General?

a. If your answer is yes, what was their name(s) and in what years did she/they “govern”?

24. Has Australia ever had a homosexual Prime Minister or state Premier?

a. If your answer is yes, what was/were their name(s)?

b. Of which State(s) etc.?

25. After what or whom is Bennelong Point named?

a. Where is Bennelong Point?

b. What is at Bennelong Point now?

26. Who was Pemulwuy?

a. What happened to him?

27. Who cut the ribbon when the Sydney Harbour Bridge was opened?

a. Why?

28. What disaster happened to Melbourne’s West Gate Bridge?

29. In what month and year did a ship collapse the Tasman Bridge?

a. What was the name of the ship?

b. Where was the bridge?

30. What does DLP stand for?

31. Who was the most famous member of the DLP for most of its history?

32. What was Australia’ greatest constitutional crisis?

a. In what year did it occur?

b. Who was Prime Minister?

c. Who was the Governor General?

d. Who became the next Prime Minister?

e. Which national media icon was on the steps of Parliament House at the culmination of the crisis?

f. What was Joh Bjelke Petersen’s role in the crisis?

g. What convention did he break?

h. What was the name of the Senator whose offer of a diplomatic posting precipitated the crisis?

i. From which party did he come?

j. Where was he posted?

33. What sort of creatures populate the island off Perth, WA?

a. What is the name of the island?

34. What is the constitutional status of the Northern Territory?

35. Who was the first female Justice of the High Court Australia?

36. When did Papua New Guinea become independent?

a. Who was its first Prime Minister?

37. Who called Australia “The Lucky Country”?

a. What did he mean? (No, what did he really mean?)

38. In what year did Australia first host the Olympic Games?

a. In what city?

39. In which year and in what city did the world welcome “Matilda” as the mascot for the Commonwealth Games?

a. What was she?

b. How big was she?

c. What did she famously do?

d. Where is she now? 

40. For how many years was Robert Menzies Prime Minister?

a. From when to when?

41. Where was the Eureka Stockade?

a. What was it about?

b. When did it happen?

42. When did Aboriginal people gain the right to vote?

43. When was the legislation passed to include Aboriginal people on the Census?

44. Australian indigenous dot painting is world famous. Where did the movement begin?

a. When?

b. Name the person who initiated the movement as a community and economic enterprise.

45. Who was Australia’s most famous Aboriginal Artist before this?

a. Where did he come from?

b. What language is spoken in that country?

46. Who went to prison for planting a bomb in a rubbish bin outside the Hilton Hotel in Sydney but subsequently had his conviction quashed?

a. What year?

b. What was happening at the Hilton Hotel, Sydney, at the time?

c. Of what religious sect was he a member?

d. On whose evidence was he convicted in the first place?

47. What were Ned Kelly’s famous last words?

48. Who wrote a book with those words as its title?

a. What was his real name?

49. Who was Xavier Herbert?

50. What, and in what year, was the Petrov Affair?

51. In which year did Australia first fight a war as a nation?

a. Against whom?

52. In Australia’s early years, what was the main form of personal transport?

a. What was the main form of bulk transport?

53. What is the Australian standard gauge for railways?

a. How many different gauges were there before standardisation?

b. What were they?

c. In what year did the first service operate from Sydney to Melbourne without changing gauges?

d. What was the name of the service?

54. Where was the origin of the most important breed of sheep in Australia?

a. Who imported them?

b. Where can the descendants of the first flock be found?

55. What did Paul Hogan do before he became a movie star?

a. What brand of cigarettes did he advertise?

b. To what tune?

c. What was the slogan?

56. Who was the whistler in the advertising campaign for Cambridge cigarettes?

57. Before cigarette advertising was banned on Australian television, an announcement was made at the conclusion of each advertisement. What was it?

a. Who spoke it?

b. In what popular TV serial did he appear?

c. On which network?

d. What character did he play?

e. How did the character infamously die?

58. When was cigarette advertising banned on television?

59. Who wrote the advertising campaign whose catch phrase was “Where do you get it?”

a. Which radio stations does he now own?

b. Who is his most famous employee?

c. What is the name of the book which explores this employee’s homosexuality?

60. What is the name of the most famous Australian movie about transvestites?

a. Who is Australia’s most famous operatic soprano?

b. Who is the second most famous?

c. What dish was named after her?

61. Which two nations claim to have invented the pavlova?

a. In honour of whom was it invented?

b. On what occasion?

62. What disease was the first attempt to eradicate the rabbit in Australia?

a. What was the second?

b. Where was it first released?

c. Why?

63. Which organisation released sparrows and starlings into Australia?

a. Why?

64. Why was the cane toad introduced into Australia?

65. What is the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act??

a. When was it promulgated?

b. By whom [Prime Minister]?

66. What is the constitutional principle on which the Federal Government halted the proposed damming of the Gordon below Franklin Rivers in Tasmania?

a. When was the proposed damming stopped?

b. Which famous international TV naturalist joined the protest against the dam?

67. Where is the Ord River?

a. What was the Ord River Scheme?

68. What does QANTAS stand for?

a. Who founded QANTAS?

b. From where to where was the first commercial QANTAS service?

69. What is the full name of Sydney Airport?

a. After whom was it named?

b. For what was he/ she famous?

70. What does WACA stand for?

a. What does ‘The Gabba’ stand for?

71. What does FNQ stand for?

72. What do the following have in common? Cambridge, Archerfield, Jandakot, Parafield?

73. What percentage of Australians are indigenous?

74. What was the White Australia Policy?

a. When did it end?

75. Who was Arthur Calwell?

a. Who shot him?

b. Where?

c. Why?

d. What were Calwell’s injuries?

76. When was the first modern terrorist bombing in Australia?

a. By whom was it carried out?

b. Against whom?

c. Where?

77. People from how many countries have made their homes Australia?

78. Have atomic or nuclear weapons ever been detonated in Australia?

a. If so, by whom?

b. How many?

c. What were the long-term consequences?

79. What was the name of the control centre for post WWII rocket testing on behalf of the British Government?

a. What people lived in the area?

b. What happened to them?

80. What happened at Maralinga?

81. Where is Pine Gap?

a. To what extent is Pine Gap an example of Australia/US cooperation?

b. What do they do there?

c. Why not?

d. What access does Australia have to the results?

e. Why not?

82. Who first climbed and named Mount Kosciuszko?

a. When?

b. What range is named after him?

c. Where is it?

d. What nationality was he?

e. Why did he leave that country?

f. Who was Kosciuszko?

g. What was his full name?

h. What is the correct pronunciation of his surname?

83. What was the Cowra Uprising?

84. What did Bec do before she married Lleyton?

85. What was Kylie’s first movie role?

a. What was the film’s title?

b. What was her name in Neighbours?

c. List all her boyfriends from Jason to Olivier.

86. What is Molly’s passion?

a. What is going on under his hat?

87. Whom did Elton John marry in Australia?

a. On what date?

b. What was she doing in Australia?

c. Which Australian singer was present at the wedding?

88. Whom did Graham Kennedy marry in Australia?

a. What American TV comedy show did she star in?

89. How many Twelve Apostles are there?

90. In which month are the Birdsville Races held?

91. How many members sit in the House of Representatives?

92. How many members sit in the Senate?

93. Which Australian parliament does not have an upper house?

94. Which place has the lowest elevation in Australia?

95. Where are the oldest rocks in the world?

a. How old are they?

96. Where was the birthplace of the Australian Labor Party?

a. What happened to it?

97. Who formed the Liberal Party of Australia?

98. What were the first Australian political parties?

99. Who was the shortest-serving Australian Prime Minister?

a. Who was the longest?

100. What were:

a. The Statute of Westminster?

i. When was it enacted?

ii. When was it adopted?

iii. What did it do?

b. The Australia Act?

i. When was it enacted?

ii. What did it do?

Good luck!

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.

For the Record

Jul 25, 2007 | Australian Values, Corruption, Democracy, Immigration, Legal, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

For the Record

Eating Air

 

Sir Roger wrote to several Labor pollies recently complaining about Labor’s (really Rudd’s) lack of stance on the Haneef matter.
The first response, to his credit, was from on behalf of Kevin Rudd.

“
Dear [….you know, “Sir Roger”….]

 

Thank you for your correspondence relating to the very important issues surrounding the detention of Dr Haneef.

 

As there is varying media speculation and general commentary surrounding this case its critical to bear in mind that when it comes to matters of terrorism and matters which concern our civil liberties, the facts must be independently ascertained.

 

In cancelling Dr Haneef’s visa on 16 July 2007, the Minister stated he acted on the information and advice provided by the Australian Federal Police. Based on the information presented by the Minister for Immigration, the Minister has exercised his discretion under the Migration Act and appears to be acting within the Act.

 

Labor provided in-principle support to the Minister’s decision in good faith and sought a briefing from the Federal Police.

 

We have been provided with the standard briefings given to the opposition, but it is the government that has access at this stage to the full facts. We’ve certainly been prepared to accept in good faith the government’s information to date.

 

These facts will be tested, both by the independent DPP as they prepare any case and most importantly they will be tested thoroughly through the court process.

 

I think that in this situation it is more important than ever for us to respect the independence of our judiciary, and to appreciate the principle of sub judice, and for us to respect that our judicial system can do its job properly, and without undue interference.

 

Labor will continue to monitor developments in this case very closely, to ensure as far as we can in Opposition, that due process is followed.

 

I appreciate your concerns and thank you for taking the time to let me know your views.

 

Kind Regards

 

Kevin Rudd

Federal Labor Leader 

Federal Member for Griffith

Damn, it’s like eating air, isn’t it?

The question is not about the “judicial process”.

It’s about the politicisation of the whole process.

He shouldn’t comment on the case, but by christ he can comment on the politics and the politicisation of the AFP (etc.).

And won’t.

Where is the Knight in Shining Armour we were promised?

All we’re getting is his Horse’s Arse – about which Ken L at Surfdom has written perfectly and accurately. And dishearteningly.

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).

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?