I have been following the drama surrounding the doctor accused of aiding terrorists by recklessly supplying them with his Sim card, by doing so giving them virtual use of his identity for the commission of their crimes. Now there has been a little bit of derision from the left end of the blogosphere about how trivial this charge is but I think that it is rightly something that cannot be so blithely dismissed. The man faces the possibility of going to prison for up to fifteen years so it is clearly not such a trivial matter to the law.
Legal Eagle has a look at the case in a balanced manner but in these days of identity theft and deliberately created “phantoms” I don’t think that we can take to lightly the importance of something like a sim card just because it is a piece of plastic smaller than a postage stamp. It is what can be done with it that is significant and that is where the criminal responsibility from its misuse derives. This would of course not be so prominent amongst the chattering classes had the doctor in question not been the first person detained with out charge under Australia’s necessarily tough anti terror legislation.
Statements by our PM to the effect that the laws under which Dr Haneef was being held will be beefed up if that proves necessary brings to mind the inevitable question of how far should a society be prepared to suspend or amend the civil liberties that we all enjoy in the fight against Jihadist terror. In the UK it has seriously been suggested that terror suspects should be subject to internment.
Jones, a former chair of Acpo’s counter-terrorism committee, said: ‘We are now arguing for judicially supervised detention for as long as it takes. We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit. We understand people will be concerned and nervous, but we need to create a system with sufficient judicial checks and balances which holds people, but no longer than a day [more than] necessary.
‘We need to go there [unlimited detention] and I think that politicians of all parties and the public have great faith in the judiciary to make sure that’s used in the most proportionate way possible.’
The proposal has provoked anger among civil rights groups. ‘It is coming to the point when we have to ask serious questions about the role of Acpo in a constitutional democracy,’ said Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty. ‘We elect politicians to determine legislation and we expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment.’ Internment was last used in Britain during the Gulf war against Iraqis suspected of links to Saddam Hussein’s army. It has also been used against terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland and Germans during the Second World War.
Of course the UK has a much more pressing problem than we do (having had actual fatal attacks on it’s soil) but we are still on the Jihadist hit list none the less. So we have to ask the question is there a place for the internment of Terror suspects (with Judicial oversight as has been suggested in the UK)? It certainly seems to me that the stakes are too high just to take the line that our normal criminal law procedures are not entirely up to the task, but then again our civil liberties are an aspect of our societies that we should not blithely wish away…
A tough question for which I do not have an easy answer.
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Oh, tis a real doosie Ian. The problem is the civil liberties debate is I think a pink herring. The greater debate is “Are we at war?”. If tis, the affirmative then there’s some real actions to be pondered because there is a proper argument to be made for “wartime measures”.
Given the complexity and difficulty of investigations into terrorist activities it’s easy to argue that the current time limit is too short and that there will be occasions when it needs to be extended.
But how to do that? Internment ought to be intolerable, judicial oversight or not. Judges don’t have some hot line to a higher morality or special insight into the arcane world of counter-terrorism and there are activist judges who would free a detainee regardless of the risk to society.
A jury-style panel of citizens is out of the question too because of the security implications–no agency is going to share the information it has with the “man in the street.”
We may in the end just have to settle for what we have, with increased surveillance of anybody released through lack of evidence.
You gentlemen are both right on the crucial questions on this issue and your responses make it clear that there are no easy answers.
Personally, Elijah, I have seen the conflict as a war since 9/11 and I think that anyone who sees it as less than that are seriously deluded, but it is not war as we have known it.
Keith I tend to think that what you suggest will be the way that the competing necessities will play out but I expect that we will see some extension of the time for which a suspect can be held without charge due to the complexities in analysing the evidence in these matters.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22079048-7583,00.html
Good argument from Glen Milne on this .
Heh! I especially like the line “But in the hands of libertarians such as the Greens’ Kerry Nettle, complexities like these are reduced to slogans.”
How true.
I’m glad you agree Ian. But I disagree where this is going. I believe this is war when one cannot avoid being on the front lines or a soldier.
A few years ago I lived near Sydney Rd in Melbourne. Near my flat was a Lebanese Kebab shop that had two or three donation tins on its counter. One was to help ‘The Children of Palestine’. Despite the fact the best way to do that would be to remove the Zionist terrorists from their land, I don’t think that was the stated intention of the charity. But I digress, should I be prosecuted under the same law as Haneef if some of that money found its way to what the Western elite view as terrorists, i.e. Hamas or Fatah?
“..to what the Western elite view as terrorists, i.e. Hamas or Fatah?”
If you think that only the “Western elite” view them as terrorists, sonny you’re seriously screwed in the head.
Hell, plenty of other Arabs view them as terrorists, because terrorist scum is what they are.
And yeah, terrorist sympathisers and enablers should be prosecuted, to the full extent of the law. Otherwise, those making donations to these scam “charities” would be able to simply plead ignorance regarding the end destination and use of those funds.
Still, given your nick I’ve no doubt at all that financing rockets to be used against Israeli schools wouldn’t trouble whatever conscience you may have.
‘Still, given your nick I’ve no doubt at all that financing rockets to be used against Israeli schools wouldn’t trouble whatever conscience you may have.’
Uh huh…hmmm…
No, you’re right, the Western corporate media also view them as terrorists and contribute to many Western citizens sharing that view.
‘…because terrorist scum is what they are.’
Now, help me out here, I’m a little confused. Is Hamas, the Islamist organisation funded by Israel as a way of frustrating the largely secular nationalists of the PLO, the terrorist scum…or is it Fatah, who have recently overthrown a democratically elected Hamas with US/Israeli training and support..?
‘Otherwise, those making donations to these scam “charities” would be able to simply plead ignorance regarding the end destination and use of those funds.’
I do plead ignorance to the destination of those funds. Ah, the commitment of the Right of democratic norms never fails to impress…
“Now, help me out here, I’m a little confused.”
You certainly got that right, at least.
There are so many false assumptions, outright lies and so much pure bullshit in what you wrote, you’re beyond “helping out”.
Unless the help were to be 7.62mm in diameter, applied behind your terrorist-apologist ear, that is…
I don’t give scum like you space or a platform on my blog and I won’t engage in further dialogue with you here.
kg, calm down man, you sound like a sour old man with a gun fetish and a chip on your shoulder the size of a log. If you are so passionate about this cause, why don’t you hop on over to Iraq and join the fray.
I have just heard that Haneef is to be held in immigration detention, despite having succeeded in being granted bail. This seems only right and proper to me.
SM
I do not accept the argument that the “Palestinians” have any special right to the land of Israel and I will ask you the same question That I have asked other supporters of middle eastern terrorists; at what point do you say that a peoples claim to land is extinguished by conquest?
“Unless the help were to be 7.62mm in diameter, applied behind your terrorist-apologist ear, that is…”
More evidence of the Right’s commitment to democratic rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law!
I concur Mark L, these stay-at-home patriots really need to put their money where their (rather large) mouths are…
I’d have to second Mark’s advice here.
Over 100 years ago in Germany, the philosopher Nietzsche said they should deport the anti-Semitic ranters. They didn’t, and look what happened.
We all know that most of the people on this site who support the Iraq occupation have a loathing for Muslims – ‘there are no moderate Muslims’, as far as they’re concerned.
Since these keyboard warriors are all in favour of US ‘intervention’, and think the gentle Coalition troops have created a bastion of liberty and democracy in Iraq, I propose we deport them there. It works for everybody – we Australians get to be spared the ravings of proto-fascists, and the chickenhawks get to live in Bush’s Iraq. They would also get to test their rational views about Muslims on the Muslims themselves, rather than wasting our time.
Afghanistan would also be an acceptable alternative. As would US-sponsored Uzbekistan. I’ll even drive you to the airport, if need be.
I will ask you the same question That I have asked other supporters of middle eastern terrorists; at what point do you say that a peoples claim to land is extinguished by conquest?
By your ‘logic’ Iain, would you eventually come to accept armed forces kicking you off your land?
“This seems only right and proper to me.”
It sounds like circumventing the legal process to me, in a similar vein to Jack Thomas’s Control Order. Particularly when the magistrate pointed out that the AFP’s case against Haneefe was “very weak”.
Your question is invalid Iain, the Palestinians are not terrorists. But if I were to answer it I would say a peoples claim to land is extinguished by conquest when they relinquish it.
Hey Happy, I wonder what the consensus here is on support for the KLA..?
“I propose we deport them there.”
Right after we deport you lot to Cuba, China, Russia etc.
Come on now, we’re all supposed to be the keyboard warriors while you leftists are the warrior lot, come on lets see you do it, quaking here marxist losers.
Then by your own logic S M the Jewish ownership of Israel is entirely legitimate as they have never relinquished their claim to the land since Biblical times…
“Come on now, we’re all supposed to be the keyboard warriors while you leftists are the warrior lot, come on lets see you do it, quaking here marxist losers.”
Um, what the hell does that even mean?
Actually I wouldn’t mind a holiday in Cuba…as for Russia, i thought it was free-enterprise now, why would you send me there, I’d have a terrible time..?
“Then by your own logic S M the Jewish ownership of Israel is entirely legitimate as they have never relinquished their claim to the land since Biblical times…”
Good point. However, I don’t support the establishment of states on the basis of race or religion. Following your logic then you would have to leave Australia given the Aboriginal claim to it…
Ra Ra Ra!!!
SM: ‘Your question is invalid Iain, the Palestinians are not terrorists.’
Well you’re correct that ALL Palestinians aren’t terrorists but those who commit terrorist crimes clearly ARE terrorists. The definition is quite simple in spite of it’s over use of late. If you deliberately target and kill civilians for political gains you’re commiting ‘terrorism’. Wings of Hamas, Fatah etc.. have all either commited or condoned these acts so please don’t pretend you’re unaware of this.
Historically I’m with you as I can’t see the justification for giving Israel entirely to the Jews when the Palestinians had inhabited it for thousands of years but it’s done. Time now for the Arab world to realise that Israel’s there to stay and that the best way forward is a two state solution and an end to terrorism. It’s also time for Israel to accept the illegality of many of it’s settlements and remove itself behing the Oslo accord border.
Iain I can’t swallow Haneef’s charge, I mean recklessly providing a Sim??? They’ve clearly found nothing and have delivered this BS charge as a consequence. Would I face 15 years had they found my Sim card, or do you have to be foriegn and Muslim? We have to be carefull the west doesn’t abandon it’s liberties in the name of security as it’s a dangerous path.
BTW Iain ‘chattering classes’???? Please try and give up the culture war lingo it’s not 1996 still.
SM the logic that you want to use against me is your own 😉
Actually MM the Islamic claim to the land of Israel is a t best 1300 years old where as the Jewish claim trumps that by several thousand years…
As i say in the post about a sim card you have to get beyond the idea that it is something as insignificant as a postage stamp and consider that it is a piece of technology that could have been used to detonate the car bombs. Beyond that I cannot believe that he did not know what his cousins were up to after living in such close quarters for so long. And that is the basis of the revocation of his visa and his subsequent immigration detention.
Finally I am an old codger so if I use terms that you think are dated I think that you will just have to learn to live with it. 🙂
For some of the backwoods types, MM, it still is 1996.
The difference is, instead of Australians being ‘swamped’ with Asians, who form ghettoes and don’t ‘assimilate’, the new target for abuse are the Muslims, apparently at war with all Australians, breeding ‘us’ out of existence, poisoning the water supply, and readying themselves for a take-over. It’s funny, though, that this doesn’t seem to be the case when I go to Muslim areas, like Broadmeadows in Melbourne…and also doesn’t seem to be the case in most of Australia, where there aren’t many Muslims at all, much less jihadists.
Well Hap at least I was out of short trousers in 1996 but I doubt that you had even sprouted bum fluff at that time.
Are you capable of saying anything that does not sound like a quote from the young Marxist’s handbook?
Are you capable of saying anything that doesn’t read like a dyslexic’s rendering of Andrew Bolt? I guess it’s easier than actually refuting a statement.
As for your age being some sort of credential – as they say, there’s no fool like an old fool.
“I have just heard that Haneef is to be held in immigration detention, despite having succeeded in being granted bail. This seems only right and proper to me.”
Yes, if the courts, applying the law and proper procedure, don’t give you the result you want: override them! That magistrate was completely biased because she had to consider evidence and procedure and, you know, actual justice. Whereas Kevin, you know, doesn’t have any of those limitations.
Frankly, I don’t see why we need courts at all. We should just leave decisions regarding individual liberty up to grandstanding politicians.
In fact, let’s make Kevin Andrews Supreme Judge Of Australia and give him the power to decide any legal question he wants. I mean, we get to vote for our local MP every three years – so why not give the executive complete power over every aspect of our lives in the meantime? I’m sure they’ll only use it for our own good and to keep us safe from terrorists.
After all, that’s what conservatism is all about: complete trust in the government.
Jeremy,
Haneef has failed the character test, under the immigration act, which does not have anything to do with any court, the cancellation of any visa is at the discretion of the minister and I am sure that he has acted in the interest of all Australians by doing so. Had this man been an Australian citizen he would have been allowed into the community while he waits to answer the charge he now faces. Perhaps you should do some basic research about what it means to be of good character because you seem to lack any comprehension of it as far as I can see by your latest post or the way that you happily welcome back the supporters of suicide bombing.
Oh and how about providing me with a reason that I should continue to allow you to comment here when you will not return the favour to me at your blog?
Oh and how about providing me with a reason that I should continue to allow you to comment here when you will not return the favour to me at your blog?
Because it is an excellent opportunity for you to use your blog’s ‘bold’ function, whilst chastising ‘the minions of the left’.
🙄
The lefties are really sour Iain, it’s been a double whammy the last week, a triple whammy when you think about it, first that Brisbane fellow was arrested on terrorism suspicions, leftists have been fighting for how many decades to give terrorists the right to plot in peace and one of them gets caught. Then they hold the fellow for 12 days, I think, without a charge, because of that fascist Howard’s law, I’m surprised leftists weren’t killing themselves over it as a form of protest, oh who am I kidding leftists don’t have the balls to do the right thing. Then to make matters even worse, kind of like a kick to the crotch and the teeth in one go, maybe some fancy martial arts expert knows the correct term for it, the fellow gets bail and just as the leftists were popping corks, the Howard regime strikes again and revokes his visa, last I heard the fellow might find himself in a detention centre. To make matters worse their hero Kevin Rudd, *sniff*bastard*sob* is supporting the Howard regime on this, they only have the Greens whining about what their internal focus group told them to whine about, in support.
Leftists must be regretting supporting banning guns because after this they really want to do the right thing but they can’t, they’ll have to wait for some criminal scumbag to come in and put them out of their misery, but unbeknownst to them recent research shows even the dumbest criminals are smarter than stupid leftists, even they won’t kill the leftists because they can only depend on these useful idiots to barrack for them when the conservatives are rightly calling for their backsides to be strung up from tall buildings. I feel for you leftists, really sucks to be you, pack your bags now, you need to head to Villawoord, sorry to kick you in the shins again, but because of that fascist Howard, again, you no longer have access to Student union fees, so you’ll have to work for your protest funds.
Nothing like a stream-of-consciousness rant from MK.
If James Joyce were a retarded, inbred, Pinochet supporter, Ulysses could’ve been written by MK.
This simple leftist-rightist vitriol is getting out of hand.
“After all, that’s what conservatism is all about: complete trust in the government.”
That’s quite a general, blanket statement, Jeremy. I think Andrew Sullivan would strongly disagree. I would too, because I don’t think it’s a property inherent in left or right ideologies. It is a property inherent in authoritarianism, but you should know that’s not quite the same thing.
Andrew Sullivan, incidently, does offer a recent example of Christianist Terror (I remember you rhetorically asking about the existence of this, Iain):
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/christianist-te.html#more
Anyway, as for the Sim card “giving them virtual use of his identity for the commission of their crimes”, I can’t accept that for a second. If it had been his passport, or his drivers license, you may have had a point. But something like a Sim card is so easily, commercially available, and crucially, could have been bought by them (Haneefs cousins). It’s also not something that one would be taking from the UK back to Australia, either. Do you really think legislation against the ‘reckless'(?) provision of Sim cards would make an iota of difference to someone about to blow up a car? Now either Haneef did know what his cousins plans were, or he didn’t. This is not only extremely difficult to prove, but also extremely easy to defend against. Take Alexander Downer on AWB, for example. If Haneef didn’t know, then he should walk free. But even if he did know what they were planning, would the illegality of slipping them his Sim card have affected the outcome? Not in the slightest, I fear. So I can’t see the point in the governments decision to cancel his visa in order to override a court decision.
I’d have thought that a ‘conservative’, by the way, would be seeking less state-interference, not more, and so would be denouncing the government coming in and over-riding a court-ruling.
Anyway, I think I shall have to write my own post on this. It’s gotten me all riled up.
“Leftists must be regretting supporting banning guns because after this they really want to do the right thing but they can’t”
So the ‘right’, MK, is presumably in favour of abolishing gun-ownership laws and tightening Sim-card laws?
Gun-ownership *laws*, in case you have trouble following that..
(Fixed that for you Cooper 😉 ) edited by Iain
Hap
My post critiquing your piece was entirely focused upon what you say there. Like my criticism or not, none of what I wrote was an attack upon you personally. Now instead of coming back with any response to the shortcomings in your argument, that I have highlighted, you have done very little more than sprout insults and snide attacks upon the conservatives who have commented here (including Moi). Now as the author of the piece that I have been critiquing I have been willing to cut you a lot of slack but this is your first and final warning that if you continue to post nothing but ad hominem responses that I will place your comments under moderation.
Cheers
What arrant hypocrisy, Iain.
Your post and comments are little else but ad hom statements. Maybe you should re-read your contribution – the fact that my post contained references to books you don’t know caused you to fire out a whole sereies of epithets in my direction. When challenged on this, you then revert to type, and accuse me of ‘Marxism’, of being young, etc.
You are also a hypocrite in the manner in which you attempted to ‘critique’ the post. I seem to recall your support of Nick Cohen’s book. Even though his tired arguments have been put in newspapers across the country, and even though there are several other faux-leftists with carbon-copy arguments (Hitchens, Phillips, the Eustonites), you seemed to think nobody could possibly criticise Cohen until they had read and understood the book. Yet you have neither read nor understood my post, or its references, yet you feel free to issue childish generalisations. You have no ‘argument’ to which anybody could respoind, only name-calling.
As for the ‘conservatives’ who comment here (i.e. contemptible quasi-fascists): your friends at Crusdar Rodent contribute nothing other than abuse to the left, apologetics for the right, and repeat the slogans they hear off Bill O’Reilly. My heart bleeds for their delicate sensibilities. How dare someone offend them whilst they agitate for anti-Muslim pogroms, and tell perceived leftists to kill themselves.
“Jones, a former chair of Acpo’s counter-terrorism committee, said: ‘We are now arguing for judicially supervised detention for as long as it takes.”
As long as it takes to do what? The Hicks case shows that if you detain/torture someone for long enough they will tell you what you want to hear.
In regards to the government throwing a tantrum at the weak case they have against by Haneef locking him up in detention, isn’t it being alleged by the AFP that he is of ‘bad character’ because he was/is associated with ‘terrorists’ and doesn’t that accusation have to be upheld in court before Andrews can cite it as a reason to revoke his visa?
I recall that rap musician Snoop-Dog was denied a visa recently due to a string of actual convictions. Where are the convictions in the case of Haneef?
“As for the ‘conservatives’ who comment here (i.e. contemptible quasi-fascists): your friends at Crusdar Rodent…”
Hap, there’s nothing “quasi” about Crusader Rodent’s fascism. Take a look (if you dare) at his Blog, in particular the sub-title…replace Islam with Judaism and you could have a passage out of Mein Kampf.
MK (Mein Kampf?) just seems like a rabid wingnut who has yet to discover punctuation.
Really SM
You draw a long bow to try to use Hicks here he was captured and detained as an unlawful combatant and that is not the situation we are talking about here at all.
But the thing is that under the immigration act Andrews has acted with absolute probity and totally within his remit as minister. There is no necessity for the person in question to actually be convicted of anything.
As for the conservatives who come here they clearly have the same sort of regard for you that you have for them…
Actually MM the Islamic claim to the land of Israel is a t best 1300 years old where as the Jewish claim trumps that by several thousand years…
Iain, here you accidently justified us handing this whole country to the Aboriginies you realise. So my point remains.
And you’re essentially telling us to trust in the good government and all will be well. I’ve no doubt you’d balk at such a claim were Labor in power.
Your argument regarding the SIM is also flawed. The judge decreed that there’s no evidence of any criminal behaviour, or bad intention in regards to him handing over the card. Indeed we have judges to decide these things, not governments. This is a perversion of due process.
“Really SM
You draw a long bow to try to use Hicks here he was captured and detained as an unlawful combatant and that is not the situation we are talking about here at all.”
How so? Andrews is detaining Haneef on the suspicion that he has associated with terrorists. Without trial. How is this different to Hicks?
“There is no necessity for the person in question to actually be convicted of anything.”
So I see. Oh well, I’ve never had much respect for bourgeois law, not to mention racist immigration law.
“As for the conservatives who come here they clearly have the same sort of regard for you that you have for them…”
Undoubtedly, but I can live with being hated by an outright fascist and a raving wingnut. How about you? Or are you more comfortable with that sort of company?
“How about you? Or are you more comfortable with that sort of company?”
Actually, I take that back. That was uncalled for.
Can I just say, regardless of the specific powers of the Immigration Minister, I think supporting the detention of Haneef betrays strongly anti-democratic impulses.
MM
My position has always been that conquest has to be accepted and that you can only own territory that you can exclude others from. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one.
We do not have judges deciding terrorism cases, that is the job of a jury the magistrate has in this case a limited remit and that was wether to allow the chap out on bail.
I would say that due process with regard to Haneef’s visa has been properly fulfilled . The fact that you do not like the result is rather moot as both Labor and the Coalition agree that this is the correct course of action means that even a change of government will not change the result.
SM
You can hardly say I’ve never had much respect for bourgeois law. and then whine when that law is properly applied ? I bet you would get lawyered up quicker than you could say your own name were you arrested and you would be instructing your barrister to use what ever aspect of the law that he could think of. frankly I would be very interested to see you demonstrate that the law is racist immigration law..
I have found that both Keith and MK are very far from being fascist, by any definition of the term. They are both libertarian conservatives who abhor totalitarians of either the left or the right and as such I have no problem with them at all. Which does not mean that I necessarily agree with all of their opinions or they way they go about arguing them. But I’m an inclusive sort of guy. I am willing to give anyone a go here, even you.
😉
No SM I have voted in this country since I was old enough to do so and I am very keenly aware of the truly antidemocratic forces that would seek to impose a theocracy upon the world and it is those theocrats that you should actually fear rather than those of us who recognise the threat they pose.
In any case when has the nuances of immigration law ever been an aspect of democracy?
“…and it is those theocrats that you should actually fear rather than those of us who recognise the threat they pose.”
Must dash, but check out these anti-democratic theocrats parading their religious bigotry in Iraq…
http://bebo.com/PhotoAlbums.jsp?ProfilePhoto=Y&MemberId=2211522509
I’ve replied but the comment hasn’t appeared. Does your blog support links?
Yeah it does but more than two and it trips the spam filter, I’ll go and recover it 🙂
“SM
You can hardly say I’ve never had much respect for bourgeois law. and then whine when that law is properly applied ? ”
I certainly can. What I’m ‘whining’ about is the conservatives who demand everybody play by the rule of law (that they and their forefathers established) and then they ignore it themselves or blatantly circumvent it.
“…frankly I would be very interested to see you demonstrate that the law is racist immigration law..”
Check out the ethnic composition of an Australian detention centre, there’s your answer. And while you’re there ask where all the (mostly christian, white) UK, NZ and US backpackers who’ve overstayed their visa are…
“I bet you would get lawyered up quicker than you could say your own name were you arrested and you would be instructing your barrister to use what ever aspect of the law that he could think of.”
I certainly would. But I can make use of something without having respect for it. I’m sure some hardboiled Rightists even watch the ABC now and then…
“I have found that both Keith and MK are very far from being fascist, by any definition of the term.”
Okay, so threatening to end the debate with a “7.62mm” bullet is merely libertarianism and acceptable debate..?
SM
I will answer your points in tern
I see that your understanding of how the law actually works is not that sharp. There are plenty of reasons to respect the law in this country not the least of which is that the fact that it is generally fair and impartially applied It is not a perfect system that would be impossible. However If you want to see some horrible legal systems try the people’s Republic of China or any other state that takes Marx as an inspiration.
Err how does that prove that the law is “racist”? New Zealanders do not even need a visa to come here. I suggest that you had better find some stats to support your contention that there are Brits and Yanks who are overstaying their visas in large numbers because I have seen no evidence to that effect at all.
So your ”principles” would be dropped very quickly if it were expedient for you to do so? That is sad indeed.
Keith is resident in New Zealand and even if he was a top notch marksman there is no conceivable chance that he could hit you from there. The fact of the matter is that such things are a good example of rhetorical hyperbole and the idea that a colourful style of argument should offend someone who is a devotee of Marx is a real hoot to me. This however does not demonstrate any desire for rightwing totalitarianism. It just shows that Keith does not have much time for Neo-Coms.
Saying someone should be shot doesn’t represent totalitarianism; it’s just a “colourful” bit of “rhetorical hyperbole”?
Riiiiiight, Iain.
This relates to the discussion about overstaying Brits:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4226949.stm
I have been inside an immigration detention centre. All the people I saw were non-anglo saxons. I suspect this has to do with how administrative discretions are exercised. An overstaying person can be given time to organise a flight out or immediately detained. Where someone says they will leave voluntarily my experience with DIMIA regardless of the race or ethnicity of the overstayer is that they will not detain them and give them time to leave. The exception being
where the overstayer is a flight risk.
I am amazed by the discussion about libertarian conservative. I consider myself to be a libertarian conservative and the idea that someone should be shot is abhorrent to me or even that someone should use it as “rhetorical hyperbole” – is there any other type of hyperbole? It speaks of a macho bravado.
A libertarian values the individual over the state and is suspicious of state’s attempts to encroach on individual rights whether it be on liberty, tax, or gun control and has little regard to arguments that justify denial of liberty or rights on the basis of some perceived public good. Being a conservative does not remove these qualities but inserts concern about collectivism and strong regard for traditions.
With Haneef I accept the need to detain and investigate him for possible terrorist links and activities but the charge and the conduct of the government since the charging is a real concern. Have a read of the Australian today about the inconsistencies between the case put in open court and the evidence from the transcript and read the Australian editorial.
Conservatives do not need to prop up this government regardless of what they do – we are stronger when we say that something smells rather than barracking for what we perceive as our team.
Rudi
“I see that your understanding of how the law actually works is not that sharp.”
I never claimed to be a lawyer.
“There are plenty of reasons to respect the law in this country not the least of which is that the fact that it is generally fair and impartially applied It is not a perfect system that would be impossible.”
The law is an expression of class rule. As Anatole France put it: “The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
“However If you want to see some horrible legal systems try the people’s Republic of China or any other state that takes Marx as an inspiration.”
The PRC is neither Marxist or socialist. The ruling class there may take their ‘inspiration’ from Marx, but then again George Bush claims to be a democrat…and probably even has pictures of George Washington on his wall. But that don’t mean its so…
“New Zealanders do not even need a visa to come here. ”
Exactly, and what ethnicity are the majority of Kiwis?
“So your ”principles” would be dropped very quickly if it were expedient for you to do so? That is sad indeed.”
If you find that sad you must weep everyday as you drive to work down taxpayer funded roads…
“…the idea that a colourful style of argument should offend someone who is a devotee of Marx is a real hoot to me.”
Enjoy your merriment and I’ll remember that next time I post a thinly veiled death threat…
One does not need to be a lawyer to understand the law SM
Oh aren’t we the ideological purist SM? To the religious zealot you may be convincing but to us lesser mortals it seems that you are just playing a silly semantic game. They may not be pure enough Marxists for you but they would clearly claim other wise so I’ll take the reasonable position that if they claim to be Marxist that they are in fact Marxists. So my point about their legal system stands.
My point is clearly to say that you are showing your ignorance about the maters that you are sprouting off about here because all New Zealand citizens have had an unfettered right of entry into Australia for as long as I can remember. I refer you to Rudi’s comment on this as I think it clearly shows that our immigration law is not “Racist”.
.
WTF??? Why do you think I object to the government spending money on infrastructure?
.
If such a “death threat” is like KG’s bullet comment; meant to express great disdain it will like his comment , be nothing but a rhetorical flourish, and part of robust debate.
”The PRC is neither Marxist or socialist.“
What??? What do you propose that it is, then?
Me, I’d say socialism with Chinese characteristics.
well put Cooper 😉
The PRC is Maoist, as the Soviet Union was Stalinist. Both are nominally Marxist but contain only some aspects of Marxism, just as Westminster parliamentary systems are nominally democratic but contain only some democracy. Iain just likes to affirm all totalitarian states as Marxist from his own ideological foxhole.
And if KG’s exhortations to shoot those who disagree with him are just good robust rhetoric, then I guess that’s also true of the rantings of Iain’s bourbon-loving chum (it’s all in good fun, right Iain?)