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.
0 Comments