So, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has admitted that Haneef, the Indian muslim doctor who was deported for being of "bad character" because he was related to someone who had peripheral involvement in the London and Glasgow bombings, was wrongly charged on the basis of bad evidence. Quelle suprise!
Earth Times reports that "Each day, throughout his 25-day incarceration, new leaks, fresh errors and denials had made the case slip into a shambles." The Sydney Morning Herald reports that
Dr Haneef's lawyer, Peter Russo, welcomed this confirmation of defence claims from the outset that the police and prosecutors' case was flawed with factual errors. Mr Russo said: "The best that can be said is that it is comforting to know the DPP is learning from its mistakes."
Russo is an optimist. This case shows that the "war on terror" has exposed the covert racism of the Federal Police, political interference by incompetent ministers, and the prejudice against an entire religion based on the actions of a very few. It is an indicator that Australian public policy is driven by fear, ignorance and a complete lack of regard for civil and human rights. The only bright light is that very likely, after 24 November, Minister Kevin Andrews and the rest of what is increasingly obviously a reactionary and bigoted government will no longer be in office. I hope, but not very firmly, that the new Labor government will behave better, but history is against us here.
Haneef, for reasons known only to himself, still wants his visa back and to work in Australia. I vainly think this might be because Haneef thinks Australians are better than their government, but it is probably economic. I hope he gets it, and can then bring a wrongful arrest civil suit against the federal police and the government. He deserves it.
In more general terms, I despair for the fate of liberal democracy in my country. We used to be a shining light for these virtues, despite our racist past and our imperialist attitudes; and sometime in the 1980s we lost it. Declaring wars on abstractions has turned out to be a useful tactic for democratic governments to reel back the freedoms we won over the past centuries; it is a classic example of the strategies offered in Machiavelli's The Prince. I doubt that the Labor party will do any better than the conservatives (they certainly haven't in the states they have government).
I will be voting Green and Democrat. They may be minority parties, and they may have agendas of their own, but at least they are not yet totally corrupted by power for its own sake.
- Log in to post comments
LOL. I read blogs via an interface which just shows me the words, not the pretty interface. I read this post all the way down to beginning the last paragraph thinking that it was on Andrew Bartlett's blog, which I also subscribe to. And then I thought "What, voting Green and Democrat? In that order? A bit odd for a Democrat senator." And then I realised it was your blog not his.
well said, Wilkins. Exactly reflects my own sentiments.
The strange thing is that the voters seem to be ready to throw out Howard for no better reason than simply wanting a change, and not for any good reasons - like restoring the rule of law, rejecting subliminal plays on racism/ chauvinism, or finally seeing through the anti-terrorism fear-mongering. I had some hopes for Rudd, but not after his recent abandonment of principle over the death penalty.
I also don't have much faith that a Labor government would be much better, which is why I feel the Senate is so important in this election. I'm actually not to worried about whether the Coalition or Labor wins government overall, there are only 2 important elections that I care about: 1. Bennelong; I want Howard to lose his seat. I, unfortunately, have no influence on this outcome. 2. The 2nd Senate seat in the ACT. Liberal Gary Humphries must be unseated by Greens Kerrie Tucker, and I'll be volunteering to help make this happen.
I strongly feel that a Greens controlled senate is the only way to prevent the continued conservative gains in this country.
Rudd may not be much better than Howard, but the nice thing about a Labor government is that the leader doesn't pick the Ministers ... or so we hope. If Rudd gets in there will be some interesting fights about how the Party machinery works, as there were when Blair got in, but I doubt that Rudd will win all of them.
I agree with this much: I doubt that Labor under Rudd's god-bothering leadership will be much better. Still, I'll vote for them; they're at least unlikely to be worse.