Well the mills of God and the justice system grind exceeding fine, but they sometimes come up with the right conclusion. Haneef has been given back his visa, as was obviously going to happen from the beginning. Ex-minister Kevin Andrews did a bad thing, knowingly, I warrant, and has been shown to be the racist slag he is. I'm glad Haneef has been exonerated - the whole thing has been a farce from the beginning. It was a case of government believing its own lies and propaganda. I hope that Haneef gets compensation for this absurdity.
I find it difficult to conclude that Andrews is racist when as immigration minister he oversaw thousands of individuals of many different races enter Australia, including a significant number of Asian, African and Middle Eastern refugees. A critical assessment will involve looking at all of the relevant evidence including that which opposes a given conclusion and although Andrews' actions might support the conclusion that he is racist when assessed in isolation, the evidence that opposes that conclusion is overwhelming. Racists simply don't fly black, Arab and Asian refugees into their country, grant them permanent residency, and give them a range of expensive medical and social benefits, all above and beyond any obligations they might have under international law.
The Haneef case involved a challenge to the Andrews decision based upon jurisdiction not merit. The court held that the wrong test was applied in making the decision. The present immigration minister could simply apply the proper test and make the same decision to revoke his visa and it would be perfectly legal. The decision in no way held that the substance of the Andrews decision was wrong.
I am just amazed at the level of ineptitude at the highest level, I don't know about racism, but guilt by association, believing what your minders say, even when it contradicts other rational sources.
There were people talking to me, expecting me to believe that the security services had damning undisclosed evidence that pointed to his implication in the London matter. Secrecy, I have problems with when it is presented as evidence incognito. That one must have faith that the Government knows what it is doing.
As far as I have been able to determine, "Shall we tell the Prime Minister", shouldn't be part of the Public Service Vocabulary.
Weapons of Mass Destruct in a debilitated and cordoned country like Iraq prior to the Invasion is ludicrous in the extreme, it is amazing that the Public was convinced to the contrary so easily by Bush, Blair and Howard. Why could the People see the lies and obfuscation for what it was. A cover for the real mission, to secure strategic oil reserves in the Middle East.
It has become obvious now, the truth maybe even stranger as time progresses.
It is racism. If Haneef had not been Muslim, or brown, the way the government behaved, and for that matter ASIO, would have been decried by all and sundry. But because he was both brown and Muslim, he had to be of bad character. There is no other explanation for Andrews' and the advisors' behaviour. I am increasingly disgusted by my country's inherent racism, and I refuse to excuse it or go looking for ways to explain it away.
The sad thing is of course as you have pointed out, the politicians capitalised on the fear generated by the "War on Terror", by running with it, hiding contrary evidence and appealing to the lowest common denominator in society, like the person I spoke about.
Demonising people because of colour and race, origins or desperation. Catching a leaky boat across the Indian Ocean is not a rational thing to do, it is a desperate thing to do to save ones life and ones loved ones. What's the desperation of Andrews and Ruddock (remember him?).
Fear is a powerful motivator and we need to react with rational responses to those hawking fear. Especially when, in Haneef's case, when the evidence is secret and beyond assessment by the rest of us. Now we know the truth, but how long will it take next time?