Debugging Democracy
Too cute by half.
One interesting thing in the Solicitor General's advice are the words:
"(his brother told him) ... not to let anyone else use his number in Australia or give it to anyone else"
What could be significant is that in the Solictor-General's advice these words were not quoted, indicating that they were a paraphrase of source material, rather than source material itself.
In some media this has been reported that he was advised he should not share his contact details. However, perhaps it is actually a paraphrase of advice not to give his phone or SIM to anyone.
Evidence in support of this interpretation is that it was not advice for Haneef to not use his own number. It was advice to not allow others to use it or possess it.
Sounds to me more like reasonable advice to give about a phone. Something along the lines of: "Haneef, you idiot, whatever you do this time, don't give your phone away!"
Yet, this is not how the paraphrase read. The paraphrase sounds like he is being warned to maintain radio silence, so to speak. But even the paraphrase doesn't actually say that. Yet, the public was invited to form a conclusion that something about his brother's advice in this case was suspicious.
This raises big questions about whether the Government is playing fast and loose with facts in its possession.
I am not claiming I know what the actual words were. I am claiming there is sufficient reason to doubt the Government's interpretation of the source material and this is very good reason for the Government to be more transparent in its presentation of so-called evidence.
I encourage everyone who reads this note and cares about the presumption of innocence and abuse of executive power to circulate this note to others of similar mind.
Let's see a little viral democracy in action.
posted by Jon Seymour at 10:14
2 Comments:
In years to come people may talk of "The Haneef Affair" in the same tones that they use for "The Children Overboard Affair", "The Brian Burke Affair" and "The 'Sorry' Affair".
I think we are witnessing the last throes of a soon-defeated government. They've been too clever by half, and now Kevin Andrews is being impaled on the horns of a dilemma - if the evidence exonerates Haneef, why did Andrews cancel his visa (and particularly, refuse to reinstate it). And if the evidence implicates Haneef, why did the judiciary grant bail, and the prosecution drop charges?
We've either got a miscarriage of justice here or a misuse of executive power. Now which is it?
Howard is preparing to throw Kevin Andrews to the wolves. Right now his mind is working both angles: support and crucify.
The moment Howard calculates that his chances in the electorate are higher with Andrews gone than than Andrews remaining, Howard will dump him faster than a trick with a two-bit hooker.
It'll be just like Ian Campbell's demise; forced to resign over a 20-minute meeting with Brian Burke when Howard judged that more Labor heads would roll than Liberal, if Burke was toxic.
Given current reports about the SIM being present at both London and Glasgow incidents, I can see that the farce is only going to get deeper.
Of course, this is strong probable evidence of Sabeel's involvement, but it says nothing of Haneef.
Yet, for given the way the Government has tried to smear Haneef with the SIM, it doesn't look good. Either, this is further proof of his guilt (how?) in which they have let a guilty man go free, or they have to distance themselves from the SIM allegations.
Wouldn't have been so much simpler if that buffoon Andrews had just let justice run its course?
Suckers.
Post a Comment
<< Home