Andrew's Is Losing It!!!

When you in the Howard governemnt and even Andrew Bolt has turned against you, you know you're in trouble:

'When the case against Haneef collapsed, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews nevertheless ruled he wouldn’t reinstate the visa of Haneef, who had to leave Australia:

"But unless there is some material difference in the information provided to me by the Federal Police, then obviously my decision continues to stand and that is that doctor Haneef failed the character test and should be removed from Australia."

But when Haneef indeed leaves Australia Andrews concludes this must be a sign of his guilt:

“If anything, that actually heightens rather than lessens my suspicion,” he said.
Heads you lose, tails I win.

If Andrews really does have secret information implicating Haneef as an extremist, he’d better release it fast. Right now he’s looking like a dill.

And the 60 Minutes interview with Haneef last night makes Haneef seem not just an innocent guy, but a lovely man. '

Indeed he did. While watching Haneef's interview I thought that if this guy's a terrorist, I've been picturing them all wrong. Do terrorists cry over how the parents of terrorists might feel after watching their children commit, or attempt, atrocities?

And how can Andrew's suspicion be 'heightened' because Hannef chose to go home to see the daughter he's has never seen due to his incarceration? Would anybody in their right mind find such an act suspicious!?

Andrews needs to fess up with the inside info or it's time for some government accountability.

Ataturk Pulls A Shifty

I read an article yesterday in The Age about a writer called Ipek Calislar who wrote a biography on Ataturk's wife Latife Usakizade. It proved popular enough to sell 90,000 copies but once she'd written the book she was prosecuted for the heinous crime of "insulting Ataturk".

You see, the book contained a story of how Ataturk escaped a veritable siege on his home by mutinous soldiers who desired to kill him. His wife came up with the idea to dress Ataturk up in women's clothes, namely the chador (head to toe Muslim garb), in order for him to be released with the women and children while his wife, dressed as Ataturk, continued to walk past the windows thus fooling the surrounding mutiny. After a spell Ataturk returned with his soldiers and disposed of the rabble. Bloody genius I thought!!! But I was apparently wrong!!

"The idea that the father of today's secular state a) did not laugh at death, b) dressed in women's clothing and c) religious drag at that, was too much," writes American journalist Andrew Finkel, who has lived in Istanbul for 20 years.'

And here I thought I was reading a masterful plan to fool a group of determined soldiers who wished to kill the man. If this story were told of Ned Kelly I'm sure we'd think it was brilliant. How different the world's cultures can be.

So Much Manne Love

Australian conservatives hate Robert Manne. Indeed their hatred for him seems, at times, and obsession.

Andrew Bolt hates him:

Bolt wrote piece after piece on the 'Stolen Generations propagandist Robert Manne' and how this leftist intellectual was propagating the 'myth' of the Stolen Generations with zero evidence. The catalyst for Bolt's obsession was a Quarterly Essay written by Manne called 'The Stolen Generations and the Right' which dealt with the shrill denials from every conservative you can imagine that the Stolen Generation was a provable fact. The problem for Bolt was, and still is, that it is a provable a fact.

Bolt's attacks on Manne reached a fever pitch at about mid last year when he decided he'd debate Manne on the evidence for the 'myth' in question. It was a sight to behold, I know because I was there. Bolt seemed to actually believe that he could apply the same tricks and distortions he used in his columns to the debate but there was one problem, Manne would this time be allowed to reply.

By the end of Manne's speech Bolt was finished on the issue. Manne gave him a massive dossier of documentary evidence detailing the policy, including numbers of children taken and reasons why. The audience was also given an address with which to look it up ourselves. The dossier sat in front of him throughout the rest of the debate as if mocking every word he had to say. "Name ten!" he cried and Manne would just point to the papers. Bolt's been unusually silent on this issue ever since.

The Australian hates him:

For a long, long time the good people at the Oz have loved nothing more than to have a crack at Manne. A recent example is the infamous attack on the 'Psycho Left' only a couple of months ago. It was a broad swipe at a few public intellectuals who had dared to claim that certain actions performed by the Howard Government had 'silenced dissent' (Silencing Dissent being a title of a recent book). The problem with the attack was that it was pure hate rather than rational argument. The book in question holds many chapters from a range of authors which deal with things ranging from the governments vigorous plugging of leaks to it's treatment of those who criticise it publicly. I began reading it with scepticism, but finished it firmly believing that it had successfully made it's case. The Australian though, distorted it's argument and implied that the book's thesis was that leftist voices are gagged Stalin style.

Manne replied with a letter, which they unfairly edited, and they responded with this. Manne went from defending himself against their juvenile attack to an apologist, even admirer, of terrorists within one day. They'd so distorted what he'd written in the past that Raymond Gaita wrote in his defense, which they unfairly edited, and Gaita was forced to write again to clear the editing 'mistake'. Eventually Manne was allowed a full reply which exposed the ridiculous distortions made by the Oz against him.

The funny thing is that Manne only wrote the introduction to Silencing Dissent. He'd merely summarised the books arguments and had added a few minor comments of his own, yet instead of tackling the entire book, it's arguments and the many authors within it they almost entirely focused on Manne. It's an obsession.

Christopher Pearson hates him:

Recently Pearson wrote some scathing articles on Manne's apparent love of 'the noble savage' by addressing comments he'd made in a book review in The Monthly. Pearson spent two weeks on this, so it wasn't just a passing issue for him. Here, and Here. In his last one he attempted to argue that Manne had brushed over claims made in Louis Nowra's Bad Dreaming in order to paint pre-contact Aboriginal life as Utopian and assert that infant sexual abuse wasn't widespread in Aboriginal culture. The problem was that it was Pearson who had taken liberties with Nowra's work, as Manne successfully cleared up today :

'After Pearson's article appeared, I emailed Nowra with detailed questions concerning his evidence. I received an unanticipated reply.

"I have now read Pearson's article. I thought my position was clear. All sources, from the First Fleet marines onwards, right through to the anthropologists, pointed out that Aboriginal children were treated so well and with such loving that some white commentators thought their upbringing was too libertarian ... The important thing is this: the horrors that are meted out to some poor Aboriginal children (both girls and boys, from the age of mere babies) were totally unnatural in pre-contact Aboriginal life. My point was that some sexual abuse and violence towards women is a pathological distortion of pre-contact life. As for the abuse of young children it has no traditional base."

Following Nowra's email, Pearson has two alternatives. He can accept that concerning my critique of Nowra, his case is completely false. Alternatively, he can claim that Nowra has failed to understand the argument of his own book. '

Ouch! So what is it about Manne that draws such derision from the Right? Why is it that when Manne simply writes a review he is attacked. Why can he not write an introduction to a book and not be stomped on by the usual suspects? There's just too much Manne love on the Right these days.

More Logic From Planet Janet

Janet is quoted in Cut & Paste today railing against those fools who think The Australian has a right-wing bias:

'ONE of the problems with those peddling the line that there's some sort of wicked bias at The Australian is that they've really failed to grasp that there has been an incredibly important political realignment over the last decade over a range of issues.
We're now questioning multiculturalism, we're talking more openly about what it means to be a citizen, on education, on economics and on welfare and, indeed, on indigenous welfare and politics. There has been a huge shift, and I think that those who rail against The Australian have simply failed to catch up.... '

'The Australian reflects very much those mainstream Australian views. And I think the people on the Left who constantly rail against some sort of nasty bias emanating from The Australian newspaper simply haven't caught up with what's happened in Australia over the last decade.'

What breathtaking logic! Let's put aside the fact that The Australian has played an active part in swaying public opinion to the Right on the very issues Janet mentions and focus on the rationale. By using this logic, it would be quite alright for the ABC or The Age to demonstrate a left-wing bias as long as the majority of the population is left-wing. Indeed, she doesn't even try to defend The Australian against such allegations she merely attempts to justify it's slant by claiming that since Australia is a right-wing country, The Australian should be a right-wing paper. Anyone who disagrees with this view has simply 'failed to catch up'.

Since those at The Australian appear proud enough of their Janet's defense to quote it in Cut & Paste we can expect to see more editorial attacks on left-wing 'psycho's' and 'coalitions of the whining' and a continued unbalanced Cut & Paste and Opinion because after all, it's merely representing the majority view.

.........Oh and they've got Philip Adams!!

Albrechtsen In A Bind

Janet Albrechtsen's column today was a pisser.

She's clearly uncomfortable with the way the Haneef case is unfolding, yet appears even more uncomfortable with being on the same side as the civil libertarians:

'ONE need not venture anywhere near the intellectual wasteland of civil libertarians and their academic, legal and media boosters to believe that there is something dreadfully wrong with the unravelling case against detained terrorist suspect Mohamed Haneef.'

And in case you had any doubts:

'If the Howard Government fails to grasp that the growing unease over the handling of the case against Haneef is not confined to the lunatic libertarians, it risks undermining the case for anti-terrorism laws, destroying the Government's credibility on national security and weakening its claim on the next election. '

So she agrees that in this instance they have a point and that the case has been a travesty so far, but she's at pains to remind us that she despises the 'lunatic libertarians'. Her usual audience need not fear because her siding on this with such lunatics is an anomaly. Once again she hammers it home:

'Australia was on the verge of becoming a totalitarian state, said the civil libertarians who appear more concerned with the liberty of terrorists to go about their bomb-making business than the right of the rest of us to go about our more mundane pursuits.'

What's this got to do with Haneef? Nothing! But it reminds us that she hates those civi libis.

'But for progressives, the "out of control" Government was "exercising a monstrous abuse of power and public faith". Recalling parliament was, said Greens leader Bob Brown, "a black day in prime ministerial abuse of the people of this nation. It is disgusting." '

Again where's the connection? Nowhere! They're crap that's all.

'So far we have Haneef's SIM card, which authorities claimed was used in the failed Glasgow bomb attack, turning up hundreds of kilometres away in Liverpool, and other major inconsistencies between the police record of interview, leaked to The Australian, and material presented by the Australian Federal Police to a Queensland magistrate during Haneef's bail hearing. And, ouch, Britain's Metropolitan Police is laughing at the AFP for overseeing such a "major cock-up". '

Oh that's right you agree with the lunatics on this one don't you Janet.

'The same goes for the headline-hunting and opportunistic band of lawyers who peddle schlock horror stories about anti-terrorism laws. After all, these guys would be the first to launch class actions against the Government and authorities in the event of a terrorist attack. You can't win these people over. They have been waiting to dance on the grave of Australia's terrorism laws since those laws were enacted. '

Yeah we know, but you hate them anyway.

Mugabe's A Legend......

...ary wanker!!




Zimbabwe is clearly on the edge of complete collapse with poor locals fleeing the declining conditions into South Africa where they are hunted down and sent back, only to turn straight around again. A local explains the situation succinctly:

'"We paid someone 100 South African rand ($A16.40) to take us from the Zimbabwean side to the South African side, but then we met robbers and they took all our money," said Mr Vandira, 20, a jobless builder who wants a job to support his elderly mother back home.
"They had a pistol and clubs and they beat my friend, so his tooth has been knocked loose," he said. "Yes, it's a risk, but it is better than being in Zimbabwe."

Meanwhile the tyrant Mugabe keeps the craziness coming by forcing retailers to slash their prices causing shops to empty without the ability to re-stock. The situation appears to be reaching it's dire end:

'I snatched up two packets of bacon. I don't eat bacon from one year to the next.
We are all behaving abnormally. Because we all know that before long there will be nothing left in the shops and there will be no fuel and we will have to hunt around the black market for food and fuel, and even that is bound to dry up and then everything will stop.
Everyone knows that what the Government of Robert Mugabe is doing is not just bungling, not just senseless -- but mad.
It feels as though we are slipping, out of control, God only knows into what.'

With all the noble statements regarding the need to intervene in Iraq in order to help Iraqi's (albeit after no weapons were found), I'm sure Zimbabweans wonder where we are on this one. Or the Sudanese for that matter.

Haneef So Far

This story has been incredible so far. Let's go through the events and false claims, let me know if I've missed any.

1) Haneef's arrested apparently fleeing the country with a one way ticket without informing his place of work.

False. He did inform his work after all and gave the completely acceptable explanation that his wife had just given birth and he wanted to see his family. His father had booked the one way ticket as well, and this was after Haneef had called police in Britain to explain why they had his SIM.

2) His SIM was found in the car which crashed into Glasgow airport. The accusation was hence made that the SIM was intended to trigger a bomb.

False. The SIM was found in his cousins apartment with the person Haneef admitted giving it to. He had also explained that the reason he gave the SIM to his cousin was because it was still active and he did not want to waste it. Also, it appears there's no evidence that it was at all intended for use in the attack, let alone Haneef actually being aware of this possibility.

3) Police made the claim that Haneef used to live with his two second cousins in England.

False. As Haneef had informed them in the interview he had never lived with the two men.

4) The Murdoch tabloids splashed all over their front covers that Haneef was surveying a possible target on the Gold Coast. Pictures of buildings foundations were found etc....

False. As Keelty informed everyone yesterday this accusation is wrong.

5) Police claimed that Haneef had Kafeel Ahmed's details in his diary and asked Haneef the hand writing was his own.

False. The hand writing wasn't his and neither were Kafeels details in his diary. Keelty has recently come out to deny that police had written in the diary which makes it an odd exchange. I can't for the life of me grasp what that conversation means given this denial.

Haneef may be guilty of something, but this episode so far is just ridiculous. It surely isn't instilling faith from the public in the AFP or our new terror laws. Gerard Henderson attempts explain it all:

' The events which took place in Britain are of utmost seriousness. There could have been many hundreds or thousands died as a result of those attacks, which didn't succeed.
At a time of acute awareness about national security both in Britain and also to some extent in Australia, it's not unreasonable that the federal police should act cautiously in relation to these matters, should put someone up on trial, they have to produce the evidence. This is not unusual. In the criminal jurisdiction, these matters go on every day. There are people being put away tonight, against whom there is some evidence and some disputed evidence, they'll go up on trial, have a bail application. There's nothing unusual about Mohamed Haneef, except he's created a lot of media attention. '

Also except he was granted bail then had his visa revoked as a consequence but other than that he might be right. A good explanation for this circus was given by Waleed Aly today:

'Only last week, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock neatly encapsulated this democratic impulse when interrogated about the fairness of Haneef's treatment, responding: "You would be asking me different types of questions if we found out later that there were avenues of inquiry that could have been pursued ... and some terrible event happened in Australia."
Ruddock is undoubtedly correct, which only demonstrates that it is politically safer in the face of a terror threat for a democratic government to overreact, even if it is strategically unwise. Even the Opposition is hamstrung, and supports the Government's conduct at every turn. It wouldn't dare do anything else.
Western politicians assure us of their toughness on terror. They have little choice. It is harder in a democracy to show strategic restraint. If only politicians were rewarded for being smart on terror. '