|
Kevin Andrews responds with Innuendo
by dingo Tuesday, Jul 31 2007, 12:34am
national /
injustice/law /
commentary
Prod often enough and hard enough and watch a Liberal drop his bundle. Kevin Andrews finally responded to the challenge and revealed information relating to the cancellation of Haneef’s visa. However, a cursory analysis exposes the very thin and weak ‘evidence’ Andrews presented to the public.
Kevin Andrews
Prior to placing this evidence in a context of political opportunism, victimisation, character assassination, manipulations and beat-ups designed to enhance Howard’s election prospects, we quote the not so “secret,” ‘secret information’ released by Kevin Andrews today:
In a chat room exchange, Dr Haneef's brother is purported to have said, "nothing has been found out about you", "have you got permission to leave work?" "Tell them you have a newborn daughter". "When are you getting out?" To which Dr Haneef replied, "today."
There it is! Firstly, the media beat-up of “secret information” is completely false, as the information was submitted to the court during a bail application and subsequently rejected as extremely "weak" by the court. Peter Russo, Lawyer for Dr Haneef, confirmed information submitted in the bail application as public domain information. One wonders on what basis Kevin Andrews imagines this information “vindicates” his decision to engage in the most appalling character assassination ever committed by an Australian federal government minister.
We should not forget that the original communications Dr Haneef had with his brother are in Urdu, one of the many dialects spoken on the sub-continent, and that the ‘rendering’ or ‘translation’ into English leaves a lot to be desired. Professional translators are aware that many innocuous expressions translate into extremely provocative or misleading expressions in another language. The only expression in the ‘new release’ that conjures negative connotations is, “found out.” In order to determine accurate meaning it would have helped if the English expression was accompanied by the Urdu, however, for this exercise we will allow it to connote the most incriminating meaning possible and try to make sense of ‘much Ado about Nothing’ or ‘Huge Innuendo but No Substance!
Picture yourself as a child with your hand in the cookie jar after you had been expressly forbidden or worse being confronted with evidence of a truth about which you had lied – embarrassing for innocuous misdemeanours but searing guilt for more compromising offences! Enter the English expression “found out” and all the connotations it conjures in the WESTERN MIND; it becomes extremely clear why Andrews released this particular information but will the public ‘buy it?’ Innuendo has always been a very poor substitute for FACT.
Now to the context; you will remember that Howard would have sold his soul to have something really substantial on Haneef; what a glorious election bonus that would have made. Howard and his flunkeys did their very best with what they had available – AND IT FAILED – don’t forget it! Remember the unholy orchestrated CHORUS of Keelty, Ruddock, Howard, Downer and the rest – but waiting in the wings was Andrews with emergency plan ‘B’ – if we fail in the courts we’ll get him with executive discretionary powers, and so it went!
The reader will note Andrews’ secret release was a component part of the material available to the courts and it failed to convince a magistrate of any criminal involvement – in other words it was part of the failed material. But if we selectively extract material as was done throughout the entire debacle, we may yet be able to dupe the public with inference and innuendo, second time around – what a bloody joke! But it does reveal the condescension and contempt Howard has for the Australian public.
Now read the release again …, losing its impact isn’t it? Consider two real terrorists in conversation and amuse yourselves further with the absurdity of asking “PERMISSION” of one's employer prior to making a hasty retreat or the absurd need to make excuses (baby). Unfortunately for Howard we have reality constantly in our faces. The most amateurish criminal would NEVER ask "permission" to make an emergency retreat after a serious crime had failed – a message if one is required would simply be, ‘get the fuck out now’ or if you’re a Muslim terrorist omit the “fuck.” I would also add that quick exit messages are always in code. It should now be extremely clear why the prosecution case failed in court.
The Truth of the matter is the authorities have NOTHING incriminating on Haneef, otherwise they wouldn’t have allowed him to leave the country, which makes one wonder why Andrews was so desperate on 17 July, to have Haneef removed, a headline read: “Haneef will be deported regardless of trial: Andrews.” At that stage of this wonderland fantasy, the Haneef case had become a huge embarrassment for Howard. What is it going to be, Kevin, guilty or not guilty, you can’t have it both ways? Andrews may be attempting to invent a new criminal category of 'Harlequin,' guilty or not guilty as the need arises – the perfect victim for the Australian conservative government.
The government’s case against Haneef is beginning to take on the “known-unknowns” quality of Rumsfeld’s contractionist logic; contractionist conservative politics always implodes in the most ridiculous manner.
Haneef's lawyer called on Andrews to outline all the evidence against his client. Of course Andrews is unable to comply as he doesn’t wish to 'jeopardise' ongoing inquiries against, among other fantastics, the released Dr. Mohamed Haneef who continues to pursue his work visa and justice for the outrageous treatment he received at the hands of unscrupulous Australian authorities.
Peter Russo, Haneef’s Lawyer, completed his interview with a challenge to the Immigration Minister to provide some REAL evidence. "If he is not prepared to do that, he and his ministerial colleagues should stop their campaign of innuendo and slander," Russo said.
There is a very disturbing aspect to this whole debacle and that is while it continues to capture the front pages it distracts from the need to launch a full inquiry into the obvious sordid collusion and machinations of Howard and his ministers in their attempt to scapegoat a foreign national for purely political purposes. Howard's advisers and consultants rightly determine that it's better to distract the public with an incompetent buffoon like Andrews than allow it to focus on an inquiry!
The Haneef case, however, has had a very real and unfortunate consequence. Howard’s racism and abhorrent treatment of a dark-skinned foreign national has made it far more difficult for Australians to safely travel the world. The damage Howard has inflicted on the once good reputation of Australians should not be underestimated. He has made it a liability to carry an Australian passport; yet for this and his other notorious deeds he expects to be re-elected!
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/31/1993348.htm COMMENTS show latest comments first show comment titles only
jump to comment 1
Lawyer wants visa powers investigated
by staff report via reed - The Age Tuesday, Jul 31 2007, 10:22am
The case of Dr Mohamed Haneef highlights the extraordinary powers available to the immigration minister and the need for an inquiry, a senior lawyer says.
President of Liberty Victoria, Julian Burnside QC, said those powers could interfere with basic rights.
"There needs to be an independent inquiry into the extent to which the statute allows executive powers to be exercised on secret evidence in a way that grossly interferes with people's basic rights," he told ABC radio.
"At the heart of this case, the problem is that it has exposed what extraordinary powers the minister has to affect people's basic freedoms on evidence which cannot be tested until the damage is done."
Dr Haneef was held without charge for 12 days following his arrest at Brisbane International Airport on July 2.
He was eventually charged with one count of providing support to a terrorist organisation and was granted bail, only to be forced to remain in custody after Mr Andrews used his discretionary powers to cancel his visa.
The Indian national was finally released on Friday after the case against him collapsed, and he flew home to India on the weekend.
On Tuesday night Mr Andrews detailed previously unreleased material to justify his decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa.
Former National Crime Authority head Peter Faris QC said information released by Mr Andrews showed the decision to cancel the visa was legal and correct but that there was no good basis for prosecution.
"In a criminal prosecution, the prosecutor has to prove the case by admissible evidence beyond reasonable doubt which is the highest standard known in the law," he told ABC radio.
"A visa is a matter of discretion for the minister. If he is satisfied, or if he has a suspicion that there is an association as he has in this case, the standard to prove it is much, much, much lower."
Lawyer Lex Lasry QC said Dr Haneef's lawyer had claimed information released by Mr Andrews was already in the public domain.
"If this was all before the magistrate in the bail application, that is relevant," he said.
"The fact is that people ought to be very concerned about members of the executive government in effect trumping the decisions of independent courts.
"I understand that there is a different test. I understand that the solicitor-general said this decision is open but the way in which is was done in this case brought discredit on the actions of the minister and people are still concerned about that."
© 2007 AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Lawyer-wants-visa-powers-investigated/2007/08/01/1185647944751.html
<< back to stories
|
printable version
PDF version
