CANTERBURY-BANKSTOWN PEACE GROUP
PRESS RELEASE
DR MOHAMED HANEEF AND THE ANTITERRORIST LAWS
Finally, what was obvious to most –even without an inquiry- has been confirmed.
The unholy alliance of the Howard government, Australian Federal Police (AFP), Queensland Police, DPP, Immigration Department, and even ASIO, gave us another clear example of the real reasons for the “anti-terrorism” laws.
They fabricated a terrorist in Australia for cynical political purposes and to justify the existence of these laws.
The case against Mohamed Haneef case have been quashed by the Clarke’s inquiry, who confirmed that all the “evidence” in this case were lies, half truths and flawed interpretation. All justified with the usual clichés of the corrupt “none told me” and “everything we did was to defend Australia”.
As with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the “terrorist doctor” in Australia never existed.
The paradox is, with the destruction of Dr Haneef life, what little credibility of Keelty and the AFP, John Howard, Kevin Andrews, Philip Ruddock and all others involved in the case had, was also destroyed.
Raul Bassi, from the Canterbury Bankstown Peace Group (CBPG), said: “This disaster only could happen under the draconian antiterrorist laws brought by the former Howard government with the support of the ALP. This explains also, why the Rudd government fell short of supporting a proper inquiry into this case. Justifying the former government actions, defending Keelty and the AFP despite of obvious wrongdoings and finally, failing to offer Dr Haneef an apology and the compensation he clearly deserves”.
“What credibility”, Bassi added, “exist then in the other supposed terrorist cases? What was the real role of this alliance in the kidnap, rendition and incarceration in Guantanamo Bay of Mamdouh Habib? What was their role in the David Hicks ordeal? How can we be sure that the Goulburn 9 case is not based in the same pack of lies and mistakes?
The only way to stops another Haneef case is getting rid of these laws and review all the trials under these laws, past and present. If there is any reason to charge the convicted or the still accused, do it under the common law.
On this matter, the CBPG is promoting a national petition to be presented to the Senate Review Committee next year, demanding the repeal of these laws. The CBPG is calling also, for a judicial inquiry on the Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks cases, to know definitely the true role of the former government and the “intelligence” organizations in their ordeals.
For more information contact Raul Bassi at 0403037376.
Showing posts with label Haneef. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Haneef. Show all posts
Thursday, 25 December 2008
Sunday, 9 December 2007
Howard's gone: Now what?
OUR COMMON CAUSE
“Now what?” must be the most commonly asked question among the left these days. Now what for the struggle for Indigenous rights? For the struggle against global warming? For the anti-war movement? For the fight against the Tamar Valley pulp mill? For the Your Rights at Work committees? Local Socialist Alliance branches have already begun a series of forums on this theme.
Howard's Gone: Now What?
Dick Nichols
From Green Left Weekly, 7 December 2007Dick Nichols
“Now what?” must be the most commonly asked question among the left these days. Now what for the struggle for Indigenous rights? For the struggle against global warming? For the anti-war movement? For the fight against the Tamar Valley pulp mill? For the Your Rights at Work committees? Local Socialist Alliance branches have already begun a series of forums on this theme.
There isn’t a simple answer out there, just waiting to be unwrapped, microwaved and consumed by a grateful movement. Rather, the answer to “Now what?” will only come from trial and error, and from honest judging of the results of many experiments. Here all attempts to honestly confront “Now what?” are welcome, from GetUp’s two-day Sydney Refresh forum to Friends of the Earth’s Melbourne seminar on alternatives to establishment recipes for countering global warming.
This is an inevitable phase. That’s partly because of the unprecedented way the Rudd government came it power. It inherited government more because John Howard was rejected than because of its own program, with its powerful elements of continuity with the Coalition.
As a result, the federal Labor government begins its rule faced with a whole lot of scepticism, cynicism and doubt among those very people whose 10 years of campaigns against Howard’s crimes made the ALP’s victory possible.
Of course, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard know this. That means that we should not be surprised by a shower of progressive gestures aimed at winning our support. Last week’s cabinet decision to have a judicial inquiry into the case of Dr Mahomed Haneef is a case in point.
Our response should be to demand that such a gesture be converted into an independent investigation of all attacks on people’s democratic rights made under the “anti-terrorism” legislation. Yes, clear Haneef’s name and nail the guilty parties, but let’s also have an independent inquiry into ASIO’s role in the treatment of Mamdouh Habib and into the Howard government’s deal with the US over David Hicks, which made silence the price of his return to Australia.
So now what? For the Socialist Alliance the main point is to keep the movements for peace, workers’ rights, civil liberties and environmental sustainability as independent of the Rudd government and the Labor Party as possible. We shouldn’t forget the sad fate of the movements that brought down Malcolm Fraser in 1983 — they were split, bought off, neutralised into pure lobbying outfits and, if they wouldn’t fit in with the Australian Council of Trade Unions-ALP Accord, vilified and marginalised.
This time round it must be different. From refugees’ rights to global warming, the movements have campaigned for demands that the Rudd government, for all the gestures it may attempt, is light years from implementing. The best chance of forcing it to do a bit more than it has actually planned or wants to do is to maintain the movements’ real strength, their capacity to increase the political price for Rudd of a refusal to listen.
A very good starting point would be to force Labor to reverse its endorsement of Gunns’ poisonous Tamar Valley pulp mill. The movements, especially the wonderful, many-sided campaign against Work Choices, ended the miserable and unlamented rule of the lying rodent and created heartfelt celebration across the land.
The Socialist Alliance will be doing everything in its power to help the movements build on that great victory. In that way we shall be trying to change not just a government, but Australian society itself.
[Dick Nichols is the national coordinator of the Socialist Alliance (written in a personal capacity).]
This is an inevitable phase. That’s partly because of the unprecedented way the Rudd government came it power. It inherited government more because John Howard was rejected than because of its own program, with its powerful elements of continuity with the Coalition.
As a result, the federal Labor government begins its rule faced with a whole lot of scepticism, cynicism and doubt among those very people whose 10 years of campaigns against Howard’s crimes made the ALP’s victory possible.
Of course, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard know this. That means that we should not be surprised by a shower of progressive gestures aimed at winning our support. Last week’s cabinet decision to have a judicial inquiry into the case of Dr Mahomed Haneef is a case in point.
Our response should be to demand that such a gesture be converted into an independent investigation of all attacks on people’s democratic rights made under the “anti-terrorism” legislation. Yes, clear Haneef’s name and nail the guilty parties, but let’s also have an independent inquiry into ASIO’s role in the treatment of Mamdouh Habib and into the Howard government’s deal with the US over David Hicks, which made silence the price of his return to Australia.
So now what? For the Socialist Alliance the main point is to keep the movements for peace, workers’ rights, civil liberties and environmental sustainability as independent of the Rudd government and the Labor Party as possible. We shouldn’t forget the sad fate of the movements that brought down Malcolm Fraser in 1983 — they were split, bought off, neutralised into pure lobbying outfits and, if they wouldn’t fit in with the Australian Council of Trade Unions-ALP Accord, vilified and marginalised.
This time round it must be different. From refugees’ rights to global warming, the movements have campaigned for demands that the Rudd government, for all the gestures it may attempt, is light years from implementing. The best chance of forcing it to do a bit more than it has actually planned or wants to do is to maintain the movements’ real strength, their capacity to increase the political price for Rudd of a refusal to listen.
A very good starting point would be to force Labor to reverse its endorsement of Gunns’ poisonous Tamar Valley pulp mill. The movements, especially the wonderful, many-sided campaign against Work Choices, ended the miserable and unlamented rule of the lying rodent and created heartfelt celebration across the land.
The Socialist Alliance will be doing everything in its power to help the movements build on that great victory. In that way we shall be trying to change not just a government, but Australian society itself.
[Dick Nichols is the national coordinator of the Socialist Alliance (written in a personal capacity).]
Friday, 3 August 2007
High Court Jack Thomas decision underlines need for Bill of Rights
By Raul Bassi, Socialist Alliance National Executive
August 3, 2007
“With its decision to uphold the legality of the Howard government's preventative detention order against Jack Thomas the High Court has lined up with the Coalition's disgraceful campaign to severely curtail civil liberties and destroy the presumption of innocence”, Raul Bassi, Socialist Alliance spokesperson on democratic rights said today.
“This decision, coming on top of the disgusting treatment of David Hicks, Dr. Mohamed Haneef and Mamdouh Habib, underlines why we desperately need a Bill of Rights in this country.
Bassi said that the decision came as no surprise given the conservative stacking of the court during a decade of Howard government judicial appointments
“What the court has effectively said is that governments can use the defence power in the Constitution to pass laws not just in respect of external threats to Australia’s security, but internal threats as well.
“In doing that it has decided that a government of rogues like the Howard administration can be trusted with an absoluely draconian power”, Bassi stressed.
The Socialist Alliance spokeperson noted that the decision effectively overturned one of the key decisions in Australian legal history—the Communist Party case of the 1950s, when the High Court blocked the attempt of the Menzies government to ban the Communist Party.
Bassi praised the principled stance of the dissenting justice Michael Kirby, drawing attention to his comment that:
August 3, 2007
“With its decision to uphold the legality of the Howard government's preventative detention order against Jack Thomas the High Court has lined up with the Coalition's disgraceful campaign to severely curtail civil liberties and destroy the presumption of innocence”, Raul Bassi, Socialist Alliance spokesperson on democratic rights said today.
“This decision, coming on top of the disgusting treatment of David Hicks, Dr. Mohamed Haneef and Mamdouh Habib, underlines why we desperately need a Bill of Rights in this country.
Bassi said that the decision came as no surprise given the conservative stacking of the court during a decade of Howard government judicial appointments
“What the court has effectively said is that governments can use the defence power in the Constitution to pass laws not just in respect of external threats to Australia’s security, but internal threats as well.
“In doing that it has decided that a government of rogues like the Howard administration can be trusted with an absoluely draconian power”, Bassi stressed.
The Socialist Alliance spokeperson noted that the decision effectively overturned one of the key decisions in Australian legal history—the Communist Party case of the 1950s, when the High Court blocked the attempt of the Menzies government to ban the Communist Party.
Bassi praised the principled stance of the dissenting justice Michael Kirby, drawing attention to his comment that:
I did not expect that, during my service, I would see the Communist Party case sidelined, minimised, doubted and even criticised and denigrated in this Court. Given the reasoning expressed by the majority in these proceedings, it appears likely that, had the Dissolution Act of 1950 been challenged today, its constitutional validity would have been upheld. This is further evidence of the unfortunate surrender of the present Court to demands for more and more governmental powers, federal and State, that exceed or offend the constitutional text and its abiding values.
Bassi concluded: “The Socialist Alliance will be using the coming federal election to build the growing campaign for an Australian Bill of Rights. In particular, we call on the Labor Party to stop vacillating on this vital issue and express its support for a principle with which the vast majority of Australians agree.”
For further comment: Raul Bassi (0403 037 376)
Thursday, 2 August 2007
Jack Thomas loses challenge on control orders
This morning (August 2, 2007), the High Court handed down its judgment in the case of Thomas v Mowbray - better known as the challenge by Joseph Terence "Jihad Jack" Thomas against the control orders placed on him by the Federal Government under the new anti-terror laws.
By 5 to 2, the Court found the legislation allowing the control orders valid. The Wombats were not surprised, only disappointed, angered, and and somewhat peeved.
Unsurprised, because we have little trust left in the corrupt, empty shell that is the liberal bourgeoise democracy and its 'rule of law'.
Angered at a system (it extends beyond merely one government, federal or otherwise) that should allow such a law to be passed in the first place, and angered that the High Court should go against even the logic of its own flawed tradition and reasoning and support the legislation. That an unconvicted man could be placed under such a regime.
Angered also that it comes so soon after the victory for Dr Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor arrested for terrorism (and subsequently bailed, then had his visa revoked, then had the charges dropped, then got deported anyway) because he gave his cousin a SIM card, and his cousing might have been involved in the bungled terror attcks in Britain. In so doing, the Thomas judgment gives the Howard Government a bit of a distraction in the terror stakes as its own bungling and political football-playing over Haneef is exposed bloodily in the media.
And not just a little peeved that at least one wombat now has an enormous (over 200 pages) judgment to read in order to scrabble together a 4000-word paper on the thing.
Justice Michael Kirby (who now bears the dubious title of most dissenting judge in High Court history) was true to form, as the fall-guy to straight-man Kenneth Hayne in the minority. Kirby's criticisms, however, reflect some of the central concerns felt about both the legislation and the judgment.
The High Court's decided that the defence power was a valid 'head of power' to enable the legislation under which Thomas' control was ordered.
The Wombats will provide (in a few days, once the judgment has been scrutinised - maybe weeks given the size) an analysis of just how far this goes, but Kirby's concerns over the breadth of interpretation given to the defence power seem legitimate.
In a nutshell, the court found that the defence power could be used for the purposes of combating terrorism, and could be used for matters internal to Australia, both of which are somewhat worrying developments.
As Kirby points out:
These things are won (as they always have been) on the streets and in the workplace.
By 5 to 2, the Court found the legislation allowing the control orders valid. The Wombats were not surprised, only disappointed, angered, and and somewhat peeved.
Unsurprised, because we have little trust left in the corrupt, empty shell that is the liberal bourgeoise democracy and its 'rule of law'.
Angered at a system (it extends beyond merely one government, federal or otherwise) that should allow such a law to be passed in the first place, and angered that the High Court should go against even the logic of its own flawed tradition and reasoning and support the legislation. That an unconvicted man could be placed under such a regime.
Angered also that it comes so soon after the victory for Dr Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor arrested for terrorism (and subsequently bailed, then had his visa revoked, then had the charges dropped, then got deported anyway) because he gave his cousin a SIM card, and his cousing might have been involved in the bungled terror attcks in Britain. In so doing, the Thomas judgment gives the Howard Government a bit of a distraction in the terror stakes as its own bungling and political football-playing over Haneef is exposed bloodily in the media.
And not just a little peeved that at least one wombat now has an enormous (over 200 pages) judgment to read in order to scrabble together a 4000-word paper on the thing.
Justice Michael Kirby (who now bears the dubious title of most dissenting judge in High Court history) was true to form, as the fall-guy to straight-man Kenneth Hayne in the minority. Kirby's criticisms, however, reflect some of the central concerns felt about both the legislation and the judgment.
The High Court's decided that the defence power was a valid 'head of power' to enable the legislation under which Thomas' control was ordered.
The Wombats will provide (in a few days, once the judgment has been scrutinised - maybe weeks given the size) an analysis of just how far this goes, but Kirby's concerns over the breadth of interpretation given to the defence power seem legitimate.
In a nutshell, the court found that the defence power could be used for the purposes of combating terrorism, and could be used for matters internal to Australia, both of which are somewhat worrying developments.
As Kirby points out:
“Moreover, drawing a line between acts designed to coerce or intimidate an Australian government for a political, religious or ideological cause (thus falling within the definition) and pure advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action (falling outside of the definition) could be difficult,’’The Wombats will return later - including double-checking this decision with the Communist Party case and a few points on the Bill of Rights debate - but in the meantime, we are left with the hard facts. There's little point trusting in the dessicated follies of the legal system to protect civil liberties and basic human rights.
These things are won (as they always have been) on the streets and in the workplace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
