Loose Ends, Bad Ends

Aug 28, 2007 | Australian Values, Corruption, Democracy, Legal, OzPol Values, Terrorism, USPol, Values, War

Loose Ends, Bad Ends

  

Loose ends:

 

‘Lying’ Downer,

the Minister for opening his mouth and seeing what comes out, denying everything on principal and making it up as he goes

”  has rejected claims of a major connection between opium production in Afghanistan and funding of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and terrorist groups in South-East Asia.”

Also, water flows uphill.

Philip Ruddock

this week opined that people are sick of opinion polls and won’t decide whom to vote for until the campaign gets under way.

”  I think people have been polled out, quite frankly…In the end, I think people do make their judgments not only on your record but on the vision you have for the future…”

What he meant to say was that coalition politicians are sick of opinion polls that keep showing Labor with a 14-point 2PP lead.

Also, according to Friday’s Burson-Marsteller survey of 1156 voters only 77% of them have firmly decided whom they’ll vote for, and only 56% of them have decided to vote for Labor.

Also, we agree that the coalition has done a good job of articulating its vision for the future: more of the same, lots more, except meaner and greyer and colder.

Howard

Despite his determination to paint every Australian as a Palestinian-style terrorist who just can’t be trusted, a delinquent intent on murder and mayhem, who deserves to be locked away from the cringingly-fearful Israeli-style power elites behind a three-metre high steel wall, Howard is proud of the opportunity to display one of the beautiful cities of the world (minus inhabitants, of course) to his powerful pals. It’s just so sad that they won’t be able to see anything of the city except for, you know, a three-metre high steel wall.

 

 

Bad End

 

Alberto Gonzalez

Bush’s nasty, slimy, footpad, redefines “American Dream”, “lead”, “public service”, “honorable”, and “noble”.

Video evidence:

Also evidence of his slimy dishonesty :

George Bush

redefines “integrity”, “decency”, “principle”, “service”, “good name”, “talented”, “honorable”

Senator Chuck Schumer (D)

covers more of the ground here.

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

Haneef “Not Uninnocent”

Jul 27, 2007 | Australian Values, Corruption, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Humour, Legal, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

Haneef “Not Uninnocent”

 

The materials available to me

“While there are inferences that are available from the material I have, I am of the view that they are not sufficiently strong to exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.”

– Damien Bugg, DPP

Did the Government interfere in any way with the investigation of Haneef, the charges brought against him and the withdrawal of his visa?

I am advised to aver that there are inferences that may be drawn from the material that is available and that such inferences are not inconsistent with any number of hypotheses, including that Mr Howard may have jumped up and down with glee when Dr Haneef was apprehended at the airport, that Mr Ruddock lit the black candle, donned his black hood, rubbed his skeletal hands with grim and cold satisfaction and began practising his hangman’s knot, and that Kevin Rudd said, “Shit! another wedging attempt! Memo to troops: say nothing and do nothing!” However, I am also bound to assert that whilst such hypotheses may not be inconsistent with the materials available to me, the material is at the same time not inconsistent also with other hypotheses which are themselves not inconsistent with innocence and which a reasonable person may think do not exclude the possiblity of lack of guilt.

You mean they were probably all over the Haneef affair like a rash but you can’t prove it?

Your hypothetical distillation of my exposition of the matters pertinent is unable to be confirmed by the person standing before you.

Why not?

I am not unconstrained by the requirement to utilise linguistic circumlocutions characterised by the passive voice, double negatives, arcane concepts and elaborately constructed sentences designed to confuse and obfuscate thereby ensuring that recipients of such communications are not unmistaken as to the purport of the communiqué.

You have to bloviate.

It may be not incorrectly hypothesised that a reasonable person might form the inference that the proposition which has been put by my interlocutor is sufficiently persuasive as to have a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.

Meanwhile, Kevin Rudd is reported¹ to have commented,

“Fuck! Fucking fuck! How the fuck can I fucking well claim a fucking moral victory now? Who’s the fuckwit who told me to say nothing, do nothing? Why didn’t the fucking bastards tell me they were going to fuck the whole fucking business up! Cunts!”

¹Whilst there are inferences that may be drawn from the material available, we are of the view that they are not sufficiently strong to exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with Mr Rudd’s innocence of the use of the quoted expletives.

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.

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