Skip to main content

Guilt by association rejected

The now infamous situation and case of Dr Haneef stands as clear condemnation of former PM Howard and his Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews. Their behaviour in all of this can only be described in one word - disgraceful! And this from men trained in the law.

Hadley Thomas, writing in The Australian, justly won the Walkely Award this year for his clear expose of the way the whole Haneef case was conducted by the Commonwealth Government.

With the Full Federal Court yesterday ruling that the decision of the original judge was correct, Thomas today reflects on the Haneef case and its implications in a piece "Let us reject guilt by association":

"The concept of guilt by association, adopted with great relish by the Howard government and its immigration minister, Kevin Andrews, in the Haneef case, is again exposed for what it is: deeply flawed, unjust and un-Australian.

As a result of the unanimous judgment by the Full Bench of the Federal Court yesterday, four out of four experienced and distinguished judges have concluded that Mr Andrews went overboard when he used the Migration Act to cancel the visa of Mohamed Haneef.

The judges set out in 50 pages what many people would regard as plain common sense - the trashing of an otherwise blameless individual's rights and freedoms by lumping them with the alleged misdeeds of distant relatives living on the other side of the world is repugnant. We now know it is also unlawful."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more