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.
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.
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?
Wha..!? I woun’t not of never of dun nuffink so bad like wot you say!
Federal agentBruce 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?
It’s time for Mick Keelty to resign. Or be sacked. Either way, he has to go:
” A senior counter-terrorism officer with the Australian Federal Police has testified that police were directed to charge “as many suspects as possible” with [tag]terrorism[/tag] offences in order to test the new [tag]anti-terrorism[/tag] laws introduced in 2003.
The admission was made by federal agent Kemuel Lam Paktsun, the senior case officer on the Operation Newport investigation that led to the arrest of Sydney medical student Izhar Ul-Haque, whose trial was sensationally dismissed in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday.
Agent Lam Paktsun’s startling testimony came during a pre-trial hearing on October 24 that has not previously been reported, when he was questioned about the circumstances of Mr Ul-Haque’s arrest in April 2004.
“At the time we were directed, we were informed, to lay as many charges under the new terrorist legislation against as many suspects as possible because we wanted to use the new legislation,” Mr Lam Paktsun testified.
“So regardless of the assistance that Mr Ul-Haque could give, he was going to be prosecuted, charged, because we wanted to test the legislation and lay new charges, in our eagerness to use the legislation.”
Keelty has to go because of how he thinks about the law.
He has to go because he has created an organisation of thugs.
He has to go because the service he leads is amateurish and lacks integrity in the worst way for the worst reasons.
He has to go because everything points to his being utterly politicised and his making decisions on political, not legal, grounds as directed by his masters, the Howard ministry.
It’s just past the sixth anniversary of the sinking of the SIEV-X and the drowning of approximately 353 people.We found this post by ex-Liberal candidate for Reid, Irfan Yusuf, via the [Andrew] Bartlett Diaries.
Excerpt:
” Then, one afternoon in October, I received a call from a lady named Mahbooba who ran a small charity working among Afghan orphans in Pakistan. She wanted to introduce me to a Middle Eastern chap. We agreed to meet at a small mosque in Auburn.
I entered the mosque and saw Mahbooba sitting with a visibly distraught man whose reddened eyes betrayed days of mourning. The man continued to weep in my presence while Mahbooba showed me some photos of some young children. The man then spoke:
These are the children of my sister. She was killed by the government of our homeland. I”ve been an Australian citizen for 25 years. I run my own business. I pay my taxes. I have only ever asked one thing from my local member and that was to help me get my sister and her children out of there.
“Who is your local member?” I asked. “John Howard,” was his answer.
He then told me about how he was informed by other relatives that the children had been placed on an unseaworthy boat. They were among some 350 others who had drowned.
This was the first time I had heard of the SIEV-X incident. I wasn”t sure what I could do. I was just a candidate in a hard-luck seat with little hope of winning. What could I hope to achieve for this man?
“Some people in your Party are starting to tell lies about my sister”s children. They are saying my sister taught her children to be terrorists. You must speak out against them. Remember what the Prophet Mohammed said — that the best jihad is to speak the truth to rulers. It is easy for you because you are in their Party”
I listened to the man”s story and looked at the photos of these young children who had barely reached their teens. After the meeting, I got onto the phone with campaign HQ. I told them about the conversation I”d had with the man, and how I wanted to make some statement about it.
“No way, Irfan,” said the voice from HQ. “You mustn”t talk about this topic. I”m warning you that if you say anything about it, you might find yourself disendorsed and expelled from the Party. We are running hard on security and terrorism.“
“But these are young kids,” I objected. Then the HQ officer told me something that made me shudder.
“Listen, I know how much you hate Pauline Hanson. You”ve got to understand that we have a deliberate strategy here. We want to destroy Hanson by sounding like her and attracting her voter base away from her. It”s part of a deliberate strategy, and it”s temporary.”
Temporary?It’s party policy! It’s dogma. It’s mandatory to promote the Pauline xenophobia. It’s been dragged out yet again by the Hansonite Kevin Andrews (wash my mouth out) with his ‘dirty filthy black diseased criminal African refugee rapist gangs’. Destroy Pauline Hanson? They’ve become Pauline Hanson.
In July we reported on Tony Kevin‘s interview with Richard Fidler on his advocacy about the SIEV-X issue when he said,
” I think my work achieved useful results going beyond SIEV X. It helped more people to see the truth behind the now discredited myth that John Howard is just another Australian politician trying to do his job more or less decently. Australians know the real Howard now. I think my SIEV X research and advocacy helped to expose the ugly truth about this man.
