Haneef visa reinstated: costs awarded against government - International Injustice/Law

Haneef visa reinstated: costs awarded against government
by nano Monday, Aug 20 2007, 11:00am
international / injustice/law / opinion/analysis

Update included

The people of Australia have worked long and hard to establish an international reputation of fair play, charity and support for ALL people in trouble and need. We had been welcomed in all Asia and other nations prior to Howard’s parochial, contractive, overtly racist policies. Today the people via the Legal system have re-established Australian fair play and justice, two qualities completely foreign to Howard and his regressive ‘white Australia’ mentality. John Howard’s xenophobic, racist, contractive, polarising policies have done us all much damage. It is hoped the decision of an Australian court to re-establish Dr Haneef’s work visa and dismiss questions of questionable character, will send a clear message to everyone and help heal our much maligned reputation in the international arena.

Howard is a pathological liar, truth is completely foreign to him; he is a negative influence on the nation and is anathema to all notions of fair play and justice – notwithstanding his complete and disgusting servility to a foreign power.

Australians need not ‘suck’ to maintain strategic alliances nor are they required to blindly follow ill-conceived and criminal military adventures that result in civilian holocausts and humanitarian disasters.

Perhaps our recovering Legal institutions may choose to take Howard to task over his “aluminium tubing” lies and other deceptions that led to our involvement in a criminal war.

The enemy is international conservatism/contractionism; cry FREEDOM and remove all conservatives from power!

We are One.

Peace

Update:
The Immigration Minister lodged an appeal soon after the Federal court decision to reinstate Haneef’s work visa but at what cost? The insular Howard government is digging a very murky pit for itself by vindictively pursuing the Haneef case, which initially was a political beat-up gone wrong – just one of the many backfires Howard’s plans have suffered of late!

This case is a classic lose-lose situation for the government. The basis of the case (SIM card) proved to be a monumental bungle and earned our local Keystone Cops (AFP) mocking derision from real police forces and security agencies around the world. Additional ‘incriminating evidence’ of chat room conversations was rejected by a magistrate as non-substantive! Where does the government, which has clearly lost its bearings, thinks it’s going by appealing this case? All roads lead to political compromise. Surely even the dimmest Liberal adviser is aware of this?

Pursuing the Haneef case is an election LOSER. The case has no redeeming value for the government whatsoever; however, it does possess value for analysts and observers, it presents a clear example of how extended tenure in power produces distorted perceptions and an inflated sense of the infallibility of a (previously) successful leader’s decisions.

If nothing else it proves that the most adept political skill is knowing when to retire from political life!

It looks, at first, like a defiant strategy infused with strength by a minister who refuses to countenance admitting he screwed up.

But the decision of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to instruct his legal team to seek an immediate stay of the orders of Jeffrey Spender in the Federal Court may in fact be the raising of a white flag.

Justice Spender unveiled a carefully crafted judgment in relation to Mohamed Haneef about 12.10pm yesterday. The judgment is neither inflammatory, nor does it read like a political rant against executive action.

It gives Mr Andrews the benefit of the doubt on one portion but finds he fell into jurisdictional error when he quashed Dr Haneef's visa.

It revolves around word association, and whether Australia's lawmakers intended the minister to have the power to oust a visa-holder notwithstanding a completely innocent association with someone who acted criminally. The battered wife, for example, would fail the character test used by Mr Andrews.

But it is what happened immediately after Justice Spender's judgment was brought down yesterday that provides a clue to the Howard Government's latest position on this vexed case. Peter Bickford, the lawyer for Mr Andrews, got to his feet in the Federal Court about 12.15pm, and sought a stay. It was duly granted. By requesting the stay, which will be in place for at least 21 days, Mr Andrews has prevented himself from remaking his decision to cancel the visa. His hands are now tied, and he provided the bindings.

If Mr Andrews appeals, as he says he intends to do, there is a high probability the case will not return to the Federal Court until after the federal election. It may be moot by then. But Mr Andrews could have chosen an alternative path if he were sure of his footing. He could have asked the AFP, ASIO, New Scotland Yard and any other law enforcement agency to provide him with all their intelligence on Dr Haneef. He could have cherry-picked it, and then relied on it afresh using the guidance provided by Justice Spender yesterday.

He could have claimed that based on further secret squirrel information, he was, again, acting in the interests of national security to cancel Dr Haneef's visa. If he had adopted this plan, he would have still been able to appeal yesterday's decision.

In short, Mr Andrews could have run the same tawdry exercise again and, this time, got it right.

But he went the other way. Mr Andrews wants a way out of this mess without looking like a complete political dunce. He is talking tough but his actions point to a significant backdown.

© 2007 News Limited.

Topics

Other Press

Cleaves on Disc/Stick