“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.