Crap!!! He Got Out On Bail!!! Oh Well, Put Him In Villawood

Australia is the lucky country. Because it's lucky that when the courts fail us and don't lock up what are obvious terrorists we can always fall back on our immigrant detention system.

After being granted bail in a court Dr Mohamed Haneef has had his visa revoked because he failed a 'character test' and is now being removed to Villawood. Apparently, even though the court determined that 'there was no evidence to suggest Haneef had any direct association with a terrorist organisation, or that the SIM card he had given to the brother of one of the accused UK bombers had been used in a terrorist attack' he's still such a threat that he must be instantly dealt with and shipped to detention.

Immigration Minister Andrews said:

'"Based on information and advice I have received from the Australian Federal Police I reasonably suspect that Dr Haneef has had or has an association with persons involved in criminal conduct namely terrorism,"'

I'd better watch out considering that I've had an association with someone who later became involved in criminal conduct, though I wasn't aware that he was planning it when we were 5 years old and unlike Haneef we weren't related so there's no excuse!!!!! Not that that helped him any.

This is a joke. Either he's committed a crime and they've evidence of this or he hasn't and they don't. They've thrown everything at this guy, they've sack his house and held him for days without charge, the media's spread many a false fact concerning the manner of his arrest and thrown his face around the nation and this is what it comes to.

What's becoming of the West? Are we sacrificing our long held liberties on the alter of security?

UPDATE:

For those who watched Andrews on the 7:30 report last night it was devastatingly clear that he was far from certain whether Haneef's association with his second cousin was 'sinister'. This is terribly illuminating.

UPDATE 2:

They've figured it out. Ms Payne is one of those magistrates!!!!! A judicial activist maybe? A possible 'lefty' with a history of disagreeing with police! Shocking!

UPDATE 3:

This is what's it all comes down to:

'ALA national director and Perth barrister, Tom Percy, QC, said when the Government was able to usurp the decision of a magistrate, the rule of law no longer applied.
"A judicial officer has heard the case in regards to Dr Haneef and has granted him nominal bail," said Mr Percy.
"The magistrate heard both sides of the case and the minister should not circumvent that.
"The separation of powers must apply. If there was any evidence presented to the court that this man was a significant risk at any level he would never have been granted bail.
"If the prosecution disagreed with the decision to grant Dr Haneef bail, they could appeal that decision in the Supreme Court but we have seen no evidence of that taking place.
"Instead, the Federal Government has taken away this man's right to a fair hearing."'

No doubt those of us who've expressed concern at the government's actions will be labelled as terrorist appeasers of the 'chattering classes' (you know who you are), but it's not about whether he's guilty or innocent. It's about the precedent in that any migrant may now be deported once any tenuous link is found between themselves and possible criminals. How is this fair?

Can We Leave?

I've never been convinced of the case for leaving Iraq as it is. I was against the war as it was my opinion that a unilateral U.S invasion would compound the problem and affirm the crusader image that Al-Quaeda likes to proliferate, but is leaving now the correct option? Don't we hold great responsibilities as the invading countries to ensure that Iraq doesn't descend into more death, and more mayhem?

Some question whether it could be worse, but I believe it could be a great deal worse if security were to suddenly decline to allow these people to hold sway:

'Gunmen in a second car, seeing Hassan on his phone, pulled forward and fired two fatal shots into Hassan's head and neck.
The murderous turmoil in Baghdad has reached a point where many families never know the killers of their loved ones, or their motives. Sunni insurgents? Shiite militias? Killers that mimic one or the other, while pursuing private motives of greed, spite, or revenge? Or, in Hassan's case, the nature of his employment, which placed him doubly at risk: as an Iraqi journalist, and as an Iraqi working for Americans?'

These stories are by now common in Iraq, it's a horrible situation, but if we leave what's in store? What's the prediction for it's future from those who want forces to quit Iraq?

I realise that many in the U.S.A are sick of the lives lost on their side and would rather their people home and safe, but this desire doesn't include a thought for what's best for Iraqi's trapped in a dilemma of our design. Is it moral to be the catalyst of this kaos and then leave it all to them?

Eight Random Facts

Polly's thrown down the gauntlet and tagged me to write eight random facts about myself. So considering that my profile is so secretive and boring I'll take a break from the politics and barneys and give this a go.

1) Everyone's probably got this one but for me it takes a central role in my life and that's music. I play guitar and write songs and have done so since I was 14. I've been in several bands of varying styles including punk and what I call rock but others find it heavier than that (It's not Cold Chisel put it that way). I still write music (I can't stop) and play with random friends while I get a project under way.

2) I'm married!!! Which is something I thought I'd never do! We grew up in the same town and went to the same highschool, though we didn't know each other then and hooked up, broke up, hooked up again, broke up again, hooked up again then got married.

3) I'm at three and struggling!!! So this is a variation of one. My favourite music is performed by Mike Patton the former front man from Faith No More. He's involved in a load of projects with a load of artist and it's all good!!!! To me it's all good anyway as most just find it weird.

4) I love reading books, magazines and newspapers. I started by consuming history books on all topics as since I was little I always wanted to be an archaeologist like Indiana Jones. I couldn't get enough information on Egyptians and Vikings etc.... then it became world political history, then current politics and early Australian contact history.

5) I'm an atheist! I was never brought up in religion and I can't help but view it as odd and fantastic. To me, with all the knowledge and evidence we have on how the world and life began I can't understand how some still believe what is written in these archaic books, or that everything was created 6,000 years ago. As science encroaches on religion I can't help but find Christianities constant revising a tad silly, and stern religious fundamentalism's even scarier.

6) I work in a winery laboratory. It's not an area that I hold much interest in but I'm content for now. I peck away slowly at online university units out of interest and maybe in the hope of something bigger but we'll see.

7) Nearly there! Love to travel, especially OS. Mostly been around S. E. Asia (bloody hot) and Japan (bloody cold at the time). Loved Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and didn't mind Cambodia but loved Angkor Wat!!!! I recommend everyone see it if you haven't already.

8) Thank god (I guess that's ironic)! How about a description? I'm sandy blonde with blue eyes (Hitler would have loved me) pretty tall and pretty slim.

Pheeewwww!

The Great GW Swindle

I just love a controversy and tonight is gonna be full of it!

Just so you know, I don't really know where I stand on GW. I'm not a scientist (though funnily enough I work in a lab) so I feel that I don't know enough to make a concrete judgement, but I'm willing to deploy the precautionary principle and be mind full of my habits. If I had to choose between denial or belief, I'd say that so far I've found the case for man made GW stronger than that against. But what's really interesting about the whole GW debate is the politics.

Conservatives appear to hate the very suggestion that unfettered consumerism may have such a large flaw, therefore they're reaching for every shred of evidence they can find in order to deny it. Some on the Left, on the other hand, have resorted to doomsday scenarios and what seem to be gross exaggerations at times as they discover a new calling in rallying against this enormous perceived hole in capitalism. It's a shame it had to be polarised in this way but in hindsight, obvious.

The Age today ran two pieces, one for and one against, in preparation for tonight's viewing and I think they demonstrated why I'm more inclined to believe. Ian Simmonds is a believer and as you can read, he deals with the errors and does so effectively.

Then on the other side we have Ian Plimer and unfortunately we get too much rant and too little facts:

'TONIGHT'S airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle and the associated discussion on ABC TV should be a hoot. The ABC has structured the panel to try to get their preferred political position aired. The panel composition will minimise scientific discussion. It contains journalists, political pressure groups and those who will make a quid out of frightening us witless.
Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster. There is a VIP section of the audience with loopy-left greens and social commentators. We have the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (BAMOS), which was in such a hurry to publish a critique of The Great Global Warming Swindle that it contains schoolboy howlers and a lack of logic intertwined with politics.'

If you're gonna debate this subject, you just can't start in this way. He lost me at 'loopy-left greens'. Culture war lingo is such a turn off.

UPDATE:

Unfortunately for Ian Plimer it appears that none of his predictions came true. The ABC neither structured the panel to denounce scepticism, nor stacked the audience with loopy-left greens. In fact, the audience was stacked with the opposite denomination who piped up with many a wild eyed accusation. And if we really think about it, the whole two hours was at least three quarters consumed with scepticism from the one hour doco, to the sceptical claims made by some on the panel and in the audience. The usual din seem merely upset that they were effectively rebuked on every point. This isn't bias, it's just sad.

Australian Hypocrisy

I honestly now don't know what to think.One minute I think I've got these guys pegged, the next I'm floundering in confusion. In retaliation for slack given it recently over it's appraisal of newspoll The Australian now asserts that 'bias is in the eyes of the beholder':

'THE measure of good journalism is objectivity and a fearless regard for truth. Bias, nonetheless, is in the eye of the beholder and some people will always see conspiracy when the facts don't suit their view of the world. This is the affliction that has gripped, to a large measure, Australia's online news commentariat that has found passing endless comment on other people's work preferable to breaking real stories and adding to society's pool of knowledge.'

What I can't understand is why it's in the eyes of the beholder when the accusations are directed at them, and not when they direct them at others:

'As The Australian has observed on many occasions, the ABC continues to be afflicted by what seems to be almost an endemic bias.'

Indeed, on the very same page today they're having a go at the SMH for biased reporting. So how can we ever take these guys seriously?

The Telegraph vs Media Watch

Media Watch has had another go at The Daily Telegraph for it's blatant hypocrisy this time concerning a silly, although harmless comment made by Anthony Mundine:

“A black player would have to do three or four times more than any other bloke to be a chance in NSW”. — ABC Sports Desk website, Choc's warning: get out of NSW, 10th May, 2007

The Tele has decided that it's so outraged by racism that it'll now boycott Mundine for his supposed racial attack. It's a pity it didn't act earlier against such speech as Media Watch demonstrated by showing comments moderated and allowed on their website:

'In 32 years I'm yet to meet a good Leb, whether they be drunk sober or doped. — The Daily Telegraph online, Racist pub bans Arabs, Islanders, Readers' comments, 3rd May, 2007'

'I used to teach at a all girls highschool where 84% of the students are lebanese muslim & they were the most obnoxious people I have ever come across...I dont know why they bother even going to school, barely any of them end up going to university or even working, they end up barefoot & pregnant by the age of 20 & then collect welfare for the rest of their lives to support their 6 kids who grow up to be complete terrors to society. This guy will probably end up being a terrorist anyway in one way or another…Posted by: Piss of Lebs— The Daily Telegraph online, 'Terror' pupil: I was stressed, Readers' comments, 11th December, 2006'

'Hey Mundine, go and eat some Coon Cheese and run it off around Nigger Brown Oval.— The Daily Telegraph online, Backlash over Mundine attack, Readers' comments, 10th May, 2007'

'…Howard Government rescued them and if they don't remember this act then they are worst than dogs. — The Sydney Morning Herald online, Muslim immigration. Is it is fair to discriminate?, Comments, 16th February, 2007'

To name a few.

David Penburthy, editor of the Tele defends posting them by using the old freedom of speech excuse. But seriously, if I wrote on the Tele's blog that David is a f#*king wanker with no f#*king brains and all of his f*$king race are pigs, do you think it'd get posted? This isn't freedom of speech at all. If language like I've used would be considered too offensive to post then why isn't racism? Surely it should be considered far more insulting than naughty words.

Tim Blair got served as well for posting similar tripe and attempted to defend it by pointing out some anti-Semitic Islamist nonsense posted elsewhere that media watch 'missed'. But was this a defense? Can you really just say 'they do too, you're just biased!!!!' and that's that?

Surely we can all agree that these comments are insulting and racist. If we allow these, then why not a whole bunch of naughty words and personal jibes? Why is deleting racist comments censorship, yet deleting my 'David is a f#*king wanker with no f#*king brains and all of his f*$king race are pigs' isn't?

Polls And Me

There must be something wrong with me. Every time I read a poll I seem to come to the wrong conclusion, or according to the editors at The Australian that is. Today's newspoll shows a clear desire from the Australian public to leave Iraq, 31 to remain, 63 to leave (in varying ways) and 6 uncommitted, but I must be missing something considering that the editorial had this to say:

'the Opposition Leader used a foreign policy speech last week to call for Australia to reconsider its military objectives to favour a more regional focus. In doing so, according to Newspoll, Labor risks putting itself on the wrong side of the Iraq debate, with its proposal to withdraw 500 combat troops after a second rotation in mid-2008 the least popular option, with only 14 per cent support.
While public support remains split on the issue, the Government's position of staying as long as the Iraq Government wants us there was the most popular individual option, with 31 per cent support. Twenty-six per cent of respondents supported a definite timetable for withdrawal and 23per cent wanted Australia's troops withdrawn immediately.'

Is it just me or is this an odd reading? Considering that Labor want to withdraw, and the majority of Australians want to withdraw also, then isn't it the Government that's on the wrong side of the Iraq debate? If anything, Labor are against the tide for not wanting to withdraw soon enough.