So in Queensland, rotting in a jail cell, even though bail has been granted, we have one Mohamed Haneef. Now let me be candid, I generally dont have much sympathy for anyone named Mohamed, I am a firm believer that people should on reasonable suspicion be allowed to be detained, and I am certainly a proponent of better immigration control. This is not to say I think we should let less people in, nor do I think that we should judge who can come in based on race or even religion. I’m more for picking and choosing based on someones ability to abide, integrate and contribute to our already rich and diverse culture, rather than trying to remain conspicuously only within their own. For example, I dont care if where you come from, women are considered to be little more than property, if you come to Australia, you cannot continue to beat your wife. Also, if you think our women dress too provocatively, learn to deal with it. You came here, we did not bring this to you.
But I digress, I was talking about Dr. Haneef. Yes, he is a real doctor (unlike Dr Tran) He is, in fact, the very type of immigrant we need to encourage in this country, especially given our shortage of medical professionals. I do acknowledge that maybe he helped out suspected terrorists in London, and perhaps he is part of a radical terrorist group, except for one thing. We have no evidence of this.
See apparently, an old mobile phone sim card of his, was used to detonate a failed car bomb over in good old England. This was the cornerstone of the case produced by the Australian Federal Police force (AFP) in order to keep him locked up. Despite the fact that he had been in Australia for over a year, despite the fact that all he had done was lend his cousin a phone sim, as he would no longer be able to use it himself. The very best charge that the AFP could come up with, after detaining Mohamed for twelve days, yes twelve days to go through his home, his computer and liaise with UK police, was ‘reckless support of a terrorist organisation’. The AFP was essentially alleging that Mohamed had ‘recklessly’ given his cousin a SIM card, which was then used in the perpetration of a terrorist attack. To me, recklessly giving someone a SIM, would perhaps mean handing it over while skydiving, or perhaps during a car chase.
But it gets better, after the charges were laid, bail was granted. Meaning that in theory Mohamed should be able to go back to his QLD home, perhaps continue working, or at least be free to contact his wife and newly born daughter. But no, after meeting with the AFP, the immigration minister, Kevin Andrews, canceled Mohamed’s visa, meaning that should Mohamed leave the prison on bail, he would have to be moved to a immigration detention center, located in a different state. This would disadvantage him even further as it would mean his lawyers would have to catch a plane just to see him. Wisely they didnt post bail.
It is my opinion that the immigration minister overstepped his bounds here. An ongoing case, with nothing proved, and he cancels a visa purely in order to keep a prisoner in custody? They claim it is merely a coincidence and the minister is merely doing his job, but very few people seem to believe it. The minister claims that the cancellation of the visa is due to failure of a character test for immigrants Justice Spender of the Federal Court of Australia has described the government’s argument that mere association with a suspected criminal means a non-citizen fails the character test for the purposes of his visa as “absolutely astounding”
This is further compounded with fresh evidence that the AFP purposefully misrepresented the evidence regarding the SIM, in that it was not used as a detonating device, and was actually found with Mohamed cousin several days after the attempted bombing.
Please note, I am not saying that Mohamed Haneef is innocent. I do not know the man, nor do I have any desire to know him. What I am saying, is that if we want to attract high caliber immigrants, who have much needed skills, into this country, we need to ensure that we treat them with respect accorded. If they put their faith in our system and our laws, we need to ensure that anything we do to them using those laws is done with good faith, and transparently. Hell, if we need to keep them locked up, just because of a remote possibility they are a terrorist, then do so transparently. Do not fudge the evidence, do not create a case where it is not, call a spade a spade. At least then it does not seem like you are treating people like idiots. The public is informed and watching. We expect the ideal of innocent until proven guilty to be upheld. We want to know why you are doing what you are doing, and we dont like feeling as if we are being lied to.
Recent Comments