Ten percent of construction companies are endangering the lives of their workers by ignoring the midday break rule.
Since July 1 when the rule came into force inspections were carried out at 2,100 companies and 210 were in violation of the law.
The only good news aspect of the story is that violations are down from 30% - 40% last year, but it's still far from good enough.
Amazingly the tabloid 7Days concentrated on that rather than slamming the violators. Headline and opening para are:
Violations are down
The Ministry of Labour has announced a drop in the number of companies flouting the midday break rule this year as compared to last year.
We have all the talk about 'name and shame' yet the names of violators are not publicised, and we have the press trying to put a positive spin on it.
The reason most gave for violating the rule is as predictable as it is unbelievable...they didn't know about it.
The only people in the country who are unaware of the rule are the construction companies!
Heatstroke kills people. The midday rule is there to protect the health and safety of the labourers.
One company not abiding by the rule is unacceptable, let alone ten percent.
Read the stories in
7Days
Gulf News.
PS
Dubai, where the streets are paved with gold.
In Gulf News the story immediately beneath the midday rule violations article tells us that 500 construction workers have stopped work to demand a pay rise. Their current salaries range from Dh 500 to Dh 700 a month. For those of you outside the UAE that's US$140-190 or £66.60-93.30. A month.
Details are here.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Spite and malice for Dr. Haneef
I have to talk about Australia again.
Of the many unpleasant features of John Howard's governments, two are in the news again over the Dr Haneef saga.
One is spite & malice, especially from the Immigration Department. That's been a feature of the department under successive ministers.
The second is childish stubbornness, particularly on the part of the Prime Minister himself.
I've posted two pieces on the saga over the last few days so I won't repeat myself with the details of the misuse, the abuse, of the terrorism laws by the government and its agencies. That of course is my point and my concern about the laws. That they would be misused, they would be abused by government. To believe otherwise is naive in the extreme.
In the first spiteful move Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled the doctor's visa immediately after a magistrate had released him on bail, so that he could be kept in detention.
Having eventually been exonerated, released without charge, we have a whole catalogue of spite and malice from the government.
Firstly, Dr Haneef will not have his Australian visa restored.
Then Kevin Andrews is continuing with the slurs, saying that Dr Haneef is "highly suspicious", that he, Andrews, has "secret information" and of Dr Haneef's perfectly understandable desire to leave Australia immediately he was released: "If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions."
The 'secret information' can't be revealed says the minister. As William Maley points out in The Australian today: "...it seemed he still could find a lot to say: his press conference was simply the starting point in a frenzy of media activity, with Andrews doing separate television and radio interviews with Sky News, Seven News, Sunrise, 2GB, ABC 774, 3AW, ABC News Radio, ABC Radio National, 4BC, 2UE, 6PR and 2SM.
Virtually all these interviews were replete with insinuations against Haneef, augmented by the minister's claim that he would have "failed the Australian people" if he had not acted.
Only months out from an election, it is little wonder some observers smelled a rat."
It's no surprise to learn that Howard and the dreadful Phillip Ruddock, Attorney General, were part of national security committee reviewing the case before the visa was cancelled. They obviously gave the go-ahead for the visa to be cancelled, in what is blatant political interference in a legal matter.
True to form, John Howard is refusing to apologise for the treatment of Dr Haneef. There will be no apology.
He also insists there will be no official enquiry into the whole shameful episode.
And of course, he plays the terrorism card: ""When you're dealing with terrorism, it's better to be safe than to be sorry."
But we're not dealing with terrorism are we. We're dealing with a monumental cock-up, we're dealing with false evidence being presented to a court, we're dealing with a man who has in effect been deported after being exonerated of any crime, we're dealing with the cancellation of a perfectly legitimate visa, we're dealing with political interference in the legal process.
It won't be long before he's telling us 'the Australian people have moved on' so that the whole thing can be shelved. He's done it so many times in the past.
There's a third feature of Howard's modus operandi that's reappeared with the Haneef situation; win the election at any cost regardless of any standards or propriety. He's done it prior to previous elections, pushing the the fear factor with lies about asylum seekers, about terrorist attacks, about interest rates...this is transparently another of his pre-election tough guy acts, but this time it went pear-shaped.
Oh, and in a final example of the style and charm of our government ministers here's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer when asked about a government apology:
"What do you expect them to do - fall on the ground and grovel, eat dirt? I mean, get real," he told reporters at Sydney airport.
They're all class.
If you're interested in the details, the story is covered in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the BBC,
here.
here.
here.
here.
Of the many unpleasant features of John Howard's governments, two are in the news again over the Dr Haneef saga.
One is spite & malice, especially from the Immigration Department. That's been a feature of the department under successive ministers.
The second is childish stubbornness, particularly on the part of the Prime Minister himself.
I've posted two pieces on the saga over the last few days so I won't repeat myself with the details of the misuse, the abuse, of the terrorism laws by the government and its agencies. That of course is my point and my concern about the laws. That they would be misused, they would be abused by government. To believe otherwise is naive in the extreme.
In the first spiteful move Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled the doctor's visa immediately after a magistrate had released him on bail, so that he could be kept in detention.
Having eventually been exonerated, released without charge, we have a whole catalogue of spite and malice from the government.
Firstly, Dr Haneef will not have his Australian visa restored.
Then Kevin Andrews is continuing with the slurs, saying that Dr Haneef is "highly suspicious", that he, Andrews, has "secret information" and of Dr Haneef's perfectly understandable desire to leave Australia immediately he was released: "If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions."
The 'secret information' can't be revealed says the minister. As William Maley points out in The Australian today: "...it seemed he still could find a lot to say: his press conference was simply the starting point in a frenzy of media activity, with Andrews doing separate television and radio interviews with Sky News, Seven News, Sunrise, 2GB, ABC 774, 3AW, ABC News Radio, ABC Radio National, 4BC, 2UE, 6PR and 2SM.
Virtually all these interviews were replete with insinuations against Haneef, augmented by the minister's claim that he would have "failed the Australian people" if he had not acted.
Only months out from an election, it is little wonder some observers smelled a rat."
It's no surprise to learn that Howard and the dreadful Phillip Ruddock, Attorney General, were part of national security committee reviewing the case before the visa was cancelled. They obviously gave the go-ahead for the visa to be cancelled, in what is blatant political interference in a legal matter.
True to form, John Howard is refusing to apologise for the treatment of Dr Haneef. There will be no apology.
He also insists there will be no official enquiry into the whole shameful episode.
And of course, he plays the terrorism card: ""When you're dealing with terrorism, it's better to be safe than to be sorry."
But we're not dealing with terrorism are we. We're dealing with a monumental cock-up, we're dealing with false evidence being presented to a court, we're dealing with a man who has in effect been deported after being exonerated of any crime, we're dealing with the cancellation of a perfectly legitimate visa, we're dealing with political interference in the legal process.
It won't be long before he's telling us 'the Australian people have moved on' so that the whole thing can be shelved. He's done it so many times in the past.
There's a third feature of Howard's modus operandi that's reappeared with the Haneef situation; win the election at any cost regardless of any standards or propriety. He's done it prior to previous elections, pushing the the fear factor with lies about asylum seekers, about terrorist attacks, about interest rates...this is transparently another of his pre-election tough guy acts, but this time it went pear-shaped.
Oh, and in a final example of the style and charm of our government ministers here's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer when asked about a government apology:
"What do you expect them to do - fall on the ground and grovel, eat dirt? I mean, get real," he told reporters at Sydney airport.
They're all class.
If you're interested in the details, the story is covered in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the BBC,
here.
here.
here.
here.
New zoo true
It looks as though one of the stains on Dubai's reputation is about to be removed.
A new zoo, so long promised to replace the appalling zoo in Jumeirah, is, according to a Gulf News report, going to be replaced and the animals relocated "by the end of this year."
At first glance and with the limited information given in the drawings the new zoo looks good, with plenty of room for the animals on the 350 hectares (864 acres) site in Dubailand. There's no indication of how the animals will be housed, although the overall design would seem to indicate that they'll have suitable enclosures.
Dubai Municipality/Gulf News
It's said that construction of the new zoo will begin in August and the core zoo will be built in three months, while the rest will be built in stages through to final completion by early 2009.
An interesting additional comment was that there will be chalets for ovenight stays in the zoo.
The story and drawings of the new facility are here.
A new zoo, so long promised to replace the appalling zoo in Jumeirah, is, according to a Gulf News report, going to be replaced and the animals relocated "by the end of this year."
At first glance and with the limited information given in the drawings the new zoo looks good, with plenty of room for the animals on the 350 hectares (864 acres) site in Dubailand. There's no indication of how the animals will be housed, although the overall design would seem to indicate that they'll have suitable enclosures.
Dubai Municipality/Gulf News
It's said that construction of the new zoo will begin in August and the core zoo will be built in three months, while the rest will be built in stages through to final completion by early 2009.
An interesting additional comment was that there will be chalets for ovenight stays in the zoo.
The story and drawings of the new facility are here.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The sordid tale of Dr Haneef continues...
Update to my last post on the abuse of its own terrorism laws by the Australian government and its agencies.
The case against Dr Haneef has been dropped and he has been released.
Sort of.
The delightfully named DPP Damian Bugg had his spokesman, the even more deliciously named Alan MacSporran, tell the court that his review had revealed errors in the prosecution's allegations.
After more than three weeks in custody, most of which was without being charged, the eventual charges are shown to be false. 'Errors of fact' were put before the court. That's a polite way of saying the prosecution presented false evidence.
So, no charge. The DPP's office can't make a case against him, however hard they try. Innocent.
But in behaviour which stresses the point I was making about the abuse of the law by government, the Immigration Minister is sticking to his increasingly controversial decision to revoke the doctor's visa and confiscate his passport. He was put in 'residential detention', which means that although he can move about freely in the community he must report regularly to Immigration authorities. That is until his passport is returned to him, which will not be until his immigration status is decided.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, after consulting Prime Minister Howard and other ministers, cancelled Dr Haneef’s work visa immediately after a magistrates decision to grant him bail, ensuring that Dr Haneef was kept in custody. They were all party to the injustice.
True to the way in which the government under the guidance of PM John Howard operates, they're all running for cover and blaming everyone else. That's been a feature of Howard's governments over the years.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews and Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty are playing the game. It's reported that the AFP are privately blaming the minister, saying that his decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa complicated and inflamed the case. So it was his fault not theirs.
Mr Keelty said the AFP had acted on the advice of the DPP that there was sufficient evidence to charge the doctor. So it was their fault not his.
Mr Bugg said the AFP had provided his office with 'incorrect material', so it was their fault not his.
John Howard ran for cover as usual. The Prime Minister said it was up to Mr Keelty and Mr Bugg to explain. It was their fault not his.
Keeping his head well below the ramparts is the appalling Phillip Ruddock, Australia’s Attorney-General. He hasn't even popped up to blame anyone else, he's just trying to be invisible. He obviously doesn't want to comment on the fact that he laid into leading lawyers who highlighted serious flaws in the arrest and continued detention of Dr Haneef, describing their statements as 'regrettable'.
The leader of the Opposition hasn't come out of it well either. Kevin Rudd has been conspicuous by his silence, by not slamming the continued detention and harassment of Dr Haneef.
And a final twist in the story. The doctor was left homeless - his apartment had been trashed by police, 'rendered uninhabitable' in the official parlance. And to make sure: His landlord said that Dr Haneef’s lease had expired because he had failed to pay rent while in custody.
"He’s officially no longer a tenant here," Steve Boscher, manager of the apartment block, said. "I don't want to seem like some kind of arsehole but his lease has run out here."
Let's leave the final words with our deservedly highly criticised Immigration Department. Immigration Minister Andrews has said Dr Haneef would be allowed to leave Australia tonight but the Government would not reinstate his work visa - his passport would be returned to him but his visa remained cancelled.
Immigration made it a condition of his return to India that he did not participate in any media photo or interview opportunities, his lawyers said. They expressed disappointment that he was prevented from publicly thanking Australians who supported him during his detention.
What a sordid story this is. Not for the first time during Howard's reign, I feel I need a shower.
Stories in The Australian here, in the Sydney Morning Herald here.
And in The Times here and here.
The case against Dr Haneef has been dropped and he has been released.
Sort of.
The delightfully named DPP Damian Bugg had his spokesman, the even more deliciously named Alan MacSporran, tell the court that his review had revealed errors in the prosecution's allegations.
After more than three weeks in custody, most of which was without being charged, the eventual charges are shown to be false. 'Errors of fact' were put before the court. That's a polite way of saying the prosecution presented false evidence.
So, no charge. The DPP's office can't make a case against him, however hard they try. Innocent.
But in behaviour which stresses the point I was making about the abuse of the law by government, the Immigration Minister is sticking to his increasingly controversial decision to revoke the doctor's visa and confiscate his passport. He was put in 'residential detention', which means that although he can move about freely in the community he must report regularly to Immigration authorities. That is until his passport is returned to him, which will not be until his immigration status is decided.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, after consulting Prime Minister Howard and other ministers, cancelled Dr Haneef’s work visa immediately after a magistrates decision to grant him bail, ensuring that Dr Haneef was kept in custody. They were all party to the injustice.
True to the way in which the government under the guidance of PM John Howard operates, they're all running for cover and blaming everyone else. That's been a feature of Howard's governments over the years.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews and Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty are playing the game. It's reported that the AFP are privately blaming the minister, saying that his decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa complicated and inflamed the case. So it was his fault not theirs.
Mr Keelty said the AFP had acted on the advice of the DPP that there was sufficient evidence to charge the doctor. So it was their fault not his.
Mr Bugg said the AFP had provided his office with 'incorrect material', so it was their fault not his.
John Howard ran for cover as usual. The Prime Minister said it was up to Mr Keelty and Mr Bugg to explain. It was their fault not his.
Keeping his head well below the ramparts is the appalling Phillip Ruddock, Australia’s Attorney-General. He hasn't even popped up to blame anyone else, he's just trying to be invisible. He obviously doesn't want to comment on the fact that he laid into leading lawyers who highlighted serious flaws in the arrest and continued detention of Dr Haneef, describing their statements as 'regrettable'.
The leader of the Opposition hasn't come out of it well either. Kevin Rudd has been conspicuous by his silence, by not slamming the continued detention and harassment of Dr Haneef.
And a final twist in the story. The doctor was left homeless - his apartment had been trashed by police, 'rendered uninhabitable' in the official parlance. And to make sure: His landlord said that Dr Haneef’s lease had expired because he had failed to pay rent while in custody.
"He’s officially no longer a tenant here," Steve Boscher, manager of the apartment block, said. "I don't want to seem like some kind of arsehole but his lease has run out here."
Let's leave the final words with our deservedly highly criticised Immigration Department. Immigration Minister Andrews has said Dr Haneef would be allowed to leave Australia tonight but the Government would not reinstate his work visa - his passport would be returned to him but his visa remained cancelled.
Immigration made it a condition of his return to India that he did not participate in any media photo or interview opportunities, his lawyers said. They expressed disappointment that he was prevented from publicly thanking Australians who supported him during his detention.
What a sordid story this is. Not for the first time during Howard's reign, I feel I need a shower.
Stories in The Australian here, in the Sydney Morning Herald here.
And in The Times here and here.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Abuse of terrorism legislation.
Bear with me, this is long and complicated but important.
There's been much comment and criticism of various countries' terrorism legislation, in particular I'm aware of the US, the UK and Australia. I have been and continue to be a critic.
The criticism centres around the erosion of rights, the removal of checks and balances that have been hard won over centuries of struggles to advance human rights, to have a (reasonably) fair system of justice. Lady Justice's double-edged sword, scales and blindfold.
Those in favour of the laws typically deride critics as left-wing bleeding heart liberals, as traitors, as terrorist sympathisers.
The concern of critics is that the very foundation of our justice systems is being eroded. The very real fear is that government and government agencies will misuse or abuse the powers.
There's a case going on in Australia at the moment that proves we are right to be concerned.
Mohammed Haneef is an Indian doctor working in Australia, one of a group of doctors detained by police in connection with the recent failed bomb attacks in London and Glasgow. He was arrested at the airport in Brisbane, capital of the state of Queensland.
Dr Haneef was arrested on July 2 as he 'was trying to leave Australia'. Sounds sinister doesn't it, those words used in the reports. "Trying to leave Australia" with its suggestions of fleeing. His wife in Bangalore had just given birth to their baby who was very ill - the report could have equally well have said "as he was on his way to visit his wife and new-born daughter".
I've talked about the power of words before. The deliberate choice between using benign or sinister phrases depending entirely on how the subject is going to be depicted. In this case, early in the saga, the media decided that Dr Haneef should be presented in a bad light. Not for the first time, that changed as what was really going on became more apparent.
Dr Haneef was held without charge for eleven days, the police applied to extend his detention, then decided to withdraw the application. Australian anti-terrorism laws allow 24 hours of questioning of a suspect. After eleven days in detention Dr Haneef had only been questioned for twelve hours.
That's a major concern with the laws on both counts. One, the length of time someone can be held without charge. Two, that the time allowed for questioning can be spread so thinly over so many days.
Now we get to July 14. After twelve days in custody without charge Dr Haneef is charged with 'reckless support to a terrorist organisation'.
When Dr Haneef left Britain in 2006 - repeat, in 2006 - to work in Australia he left his SIM card with his second cousin Sabeel Ahmad.
It was alleged by prosecutors that the SIM card had been found in the Jeep rammed into Glasgow airport. They said that Ahmad had passed it to his brother who was alleged to be the driver of the Jeep. In fact it never had been, it was still with Ahmed hundreds of kilometres away in Liverpool where they arrested him - he has not been charged with terrorism but with 'withholding information'.
As the ABC commented: "It seems the facts were not as they were presented in court."
Stuff-up or something more sinister?
(When we visited Cairo recently, Mrs Seabee asked her company's agent there to buy me a SIM card so that we would have communication when we were out & about at different places. He'd never met me, but he handed over the card unquestioningly).
Now onto July 16, charged and finally in a court of law. The magistrate ordered Dr Haneef be released on A$10,000 (Dh32,000) bail, saying he had no known links to a terrorist organisation and that police were not alleging his SIM card had been used in the British terror plot.
Now we get the government doing just what all we bleeding heart liberal lefty terrorist sypathisers had been warning would happen. The government decided the law wasn't doing what it wanted it to do, so it over-rode the magistrate's decision.
Within hours of the court's ruling Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said he had cancelled Dr Haneef's visa and ordered him placed in Sydney's infamous Villawood immigration detention centre.
Just look at this: "I reasonably suspect he has or has had an association with persons engaged in criminal activity, criminal conduct, namely terrorism in the UK," Andrews said at a news conference. He said Dr Haneef had failed a "character test" and had used his powers under migration law to cancel his visa."
So much for fair justice for all. A magistrate in a court of law grants bail, based on all the facts before him. The government decides that isn't acceptable and throws the man straight into another jail.
Then the obviously deliberate attempt to blacken Dr Haneef's image further. Rumours were spread, picked up by tabloids, that he had been plotting to blow up a high rise tower on the Gold Coast south of Brisbane. The evidence? They'd found at his home what hundreds, maybe thousands of people have - a photo of the world's tallest occupied residential building, on the Gold Coast. A spokeswoman for the Federal Police said "We will not confirm or deny the allegations."
To the ill-informed, to the far right, to the bigots, that's as good as saying he's guilty. Just as his detention in Villawood had done.
(I have plenty of photos of the world's newest tallest building, Burj Dubai, at home).
It was then alleged that police had written the names of overseas terror suspects in Dr Haneef's personal diary. Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty was forced to deny those reports and also deny that Dr Haneef was being investigated for plotting to bomb the Gold Coast skyscraper.
By July 23 the press was reporting that the charges were about to be dropped. But that the government would deport Dr Haneef.
Innocent, but sentenced as guilty.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's description of the false evidence, blunders, rumours as making the Federal Police"look like the Keystone Cops" seemed pretty accurate to me, although it's far more serious than the link to slapstick comedy suggests.
And so to the last couple of days. Now that the true facts are being published, in many parts of the world, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has announced a review of all material relating to the case. Reports from legal sources in the UK and Australia say that Dr Haneef has not been a significant focus of the British investigation into the terrorist plots and they say that his name has barely been mentioned to his second cousin during questioning.
It's all looking like panic actions, the misuse of the laws, the government overriding the law, as well as lies, false evidence, spiteful rumour spreading. Tragically that all sounds so familiar from our governments and their agencies these days.
Since 9/11 really.
And it's happened over so many issues. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the illegal spying on Americans by their government, Guantanamo, the CIA's 'extraordinary rendition' programme, unnecessarily draconian laws which are open to abuse and misuse in the US, the UK, Australia.
I've had many debates and arguments over these laws and the probable abuse of them. Typical arguments against me have included:
'Our government wouldn't do that', a particularly naive comment.
'They (government) know things that we don't know' - I had that shouted at me when I argued against the invasion of Iraq before it happened. Yeah. What they knew that we didn't was that they'd falsified documents and deliberately lied to us.
'No smoke without fire' - those arrested are obviously guilty or they wouldn't have been detained.
And worst of all the naive belief that only the bad guys are affected by the terrorism laws. That innocent people will not be caught up in the paranoia. The reality is of course that any of us could be caught up in it. Just like the competely innocent Jean Charles de Menezes who wasmurdered by an out-of-control bunch of gunmen killed by eight gunshots by a team of highly trained anti-terrorist police at Stockwell Tube station in London. A completely innocent man on his way to work.
I'm not suggesting Dr Haneef is either guilty or innocent. But I am saying that he, and everyone, should be dealt with in a way that is consistent with our established values of justice, of fairness. That overly draconian new terrorism laws are open to abuse and that they will be abused.
If we allow our governments to erode and gradually destroy our established values, we're going backwards.
There's been much comment and criticism of various countries' terrorism legislation, in particular I'm aware of the US, the UK and Australia. I have been and continue to be a critic.
The criticism centres around the erosion of rights, the removal of checks and balances that have been hard won over centuries of struggles to advance human rights, to have a (reasonably) fair system of justice. Lady Justice's double-edged sword, scales and blindfold.
Those in favour of the laws typically deride critics as left-wing bleeding heart liberals, as traitors, as terrorist sympathisers.
The concern of critics is that the very foundation of our justice systems is being eroded. The very real fear is that government and government agencies will misuse or abuse the powers.
There's a case going on in Australia at the moment that proves we are right to be concerned.
Mohammed Haneef is an Indian doctor working in Australia, one of a group of doctors detained by police in connection with the recent failed bomb attacks in London and Glasgow. He was arrested at the airport in Brisbane, capital of the state of Queensland.
Dr Haneef was arrested on July 2 as he 'was trying to leave Australia'. Sounds sinister doesn't it, those words used in the reports. "Trying to leave Australia" with its suggestions of fleeing. His wife in Bangalore had just given birth to their baby who was very ill - the report could have equally well have said "as he was on his way to visit his wife and new-born daughter".
I've talked about the power of words before. The deliberate choice between using benign or sinister phrases depending entirely on how the subject is going to be depicted. In this case, early in the saga, the media decided that Dr Haneef should be presented in a bad light. Not for the first time, that changed as what was really going on became more apparent.
Dr Haneef was held without charge for eleven days, the police applied to extend his detention, then decided to withdraw the application. Australian anti-terrorism laws allow 24 hours of questioning of a suspect. After eleven days in detention Dr Haneef had only been questioned for twelve hours.
That's a major concern with the laws on both counts. One, the length of time someone can be held without charge. Two, that the time allowed for questioning can be spread so thinly over so many days.
Now we get to July 14. After twelve days in custody without charge Dr Haneef is charged with 'reckless support to a terrorist organisation'.
When Dr Haneef left Britain in 2006 - repeat, in 2006 - to work in Australia he left his SIM card with his second cousin Sabeel Ahmad.
It was alleged by prosecutors that the SIM card had been found in the Jeep rammed into Glasgow airport. They said that Ahmad had passed it to his brother who was alleged to be the driver of the Jeep. In fact it never had been, it was still with Ahmed hundreds of kilometres away in Liverpool where they arrested him - he has not been charged with terrorism but with 'withholding information'.
As the ABC commented: "It seems the facts were not as they were presented in court."
Stuff-up or something more sinister?
(When we visited Cairo recently, Mrs Seabee asked her company's agent there to buy me a SIM card so that we would have communication when we were out & about at different places. He'd never met me, but he handed over the card unquestioningly).
Now onto July 16, charged and finally in a court of law. The magistrate ordered Dr Haneef be released on A$10,000 (Dh32,000) bail, saying he had no known links to a terrorist organisation and that police were not alleging his SIM card had been used in the British terror plot.
Now we get the government doing just what all we bleeding heart liberal lefty terrorist sypathisers had been warning would happen. The government decided the law wasn't doing what it wanted it to do, so it over-rode the magistrate's decision.
Within hours of the court's ruling Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said he had cancelled Dr Haneef's visa and ordered him placed in Sydney's infamous Villawood immigration detention centre.
Just look at this: "I reasonably suspect he has or has had an association with persons engaged in criminal activity, criminal conduct, namely terrorism in the UK," Andrews said at a news conference. He said Dr Haneef had failed a "character test" and had used his powers under migration law to cancel his visa."
So much for fair justice for all. A magistrate in a court of law grants bail, based on all the facts before him. The government decides that isn't acceptable and throws the man straight into another jail.
Then the obviously deliberate attempt to blacken Dr Haneef's image further. Rumours were spread, picked up by tabloids, that he had been plotting to blow up a high rise tower on the Gold Coast south of Brisbane. The evidence? They'd found at his home what hundreds, maybe thousands of people have - a photo of the world's tallest occupied residential building, on the Gold Coast. A spokeswoman for the Federal Police said "We will not confirm or deny the allegations."
To the ill-informed, to the far right, to the bigots, that's as good as saying he's guilty. Just as his detention in Villawood had done.
(I have plenty of photos of the world's newest tallest building, Burj Dubai, at home).
It was then alleged that police had written the names of overseas terror suspects in Dr Haneef's personal diary. Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty was forced to deny those reports and also deny that Dr Haneef was being investigated for plotting to bomb the Gold Coast skyscraper.
By July 23 the press was reporting that the charges were about to be dropped. But that the government would deport Dr Haneef.
Innocent, but sentenced as guilty.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's description of the false evidence, blunders, rumours as making the Federal Police"look like the Keystone Cops" seemed pretty accurate to me, although it's far more serious than the link to slapstick comedy suggests.
And so to the last couple of days. Now that the true facts are being published, in many parts of the world, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has announced a review of all material relating to the case. Reports from legal sources in the UK and Australia say that Dr Haneef has not been a significant focus of the British investigation into the terrorist plots and they say that his name has barely been mentioned to his second cousin during questioning.
It's all looking like panic actions, the misuse of the laws, the government overriding the law, as well as lies, false evidence, spiteful rumour spreading. Tragically that all sounds so familiar from our governments and their agencies these days.
Since 9/11 really.
And it's happened over so many issues. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the illegal spying on Americans by their government, Guantanamo, the CIA's 'extraordinary rendition' programme, unnecessarily draconian laws which are open to abuse and misuse in the US, the UK, Australia.
I've had many debates and arguments over these laws and the probable abuse of them. Typical arguments against me have included:
'Our government wouldn't do that', a particularly naive comment.
'They (government) know things that we don't know' - I had that shouted at me when I argued against the invasion of Iraq before it happened. Yeah. What they knew that we didn't was that they'd falsified documents and deliberately lied to us.
'No smoke without fire' - those arrested are obviously guilty or they wouldn't have been detained.
And worst of all the naive belief that only the bad guys are affected by the terrorism laws. That innocent people will not be caught up in the paranoia. The reality is of course that any of us could be caught up in it. Just like the competely innocent Jean Charles de Menezes who was
I'm not suggesting Dr Haneef is either guilty or innocent. But I am saying that he, and everyone, should be dealt with in a way that is consistent with our established values of justice, of fairness. That overly draconian new terrorism laws are open to abuse and that they will be abused.
If we allow our governments to erode and gradually destroy our established values, we're going backwards.
Arrogance & mismanagement - guess who!
Yes of course, the RTA.
The much boasted about Floating Bridge was closed yesterday during peak hours without any advance warning to motorists.
Emergency work demanding immediate action? Not according to the RTA.
Astonishingly, they say the damage to Dubai's vital commercial life, the lost productivity, the added pollution, the frustration to motorists, the chaos, was caused deliberately.
Denying rumours that there was a safety problem or a malfunction, Maitha Obaid Bin Udai, CEO of the RTA's Traffic & Roads Agency, said they had carried out tests and technical experiments during peak hours.
They not only didn't tell motorists what they planned, it seems they kept the police in the dark too. An official is quoted as saying that they were requested by the RTA to send patrols to regulate traffic but: "We do not know why the bridge was closed. We just diverted the traffic"
By the way, I loved this quote from Maitha. Pure bureaucrat-speak. "After the conduction of the technical experiment we noticed some minor issues, which were immediately tackled to reflect the RTA’s commitment to surpass all types of difficulties that could hamper the traffic smoothness."
First the water buses disappear the day after they're launched to a great fanfare, now this problem with the Floating Bridge.
I've asked many times before - when are those responsible for the chaaos and mismanagement going to be held responsible?
Full stories with Gulf News here and 7Days here.
The much boasted about Floating Bridge was closed yesterday during peak hours without any advance warning to motorists.
Emergency work demanding immediate action? Not according to the RTA.
Astonishingly, they say the damage to Dubai's vital commercial life, the lost productivity, the added pollution, the frustration to motorists, the chaos, was caused deliberately.
Denying rumours that there was a safety problem or a malfunction, Maitha Obaid Bin Udai, CEO of the RTA's Traffic & Roads Agency, said they had carried out tests and technical experiments during peak hours.
They not only didn't tell motorists what they planned, it seems they kept the police in the dark too. An official is quoted as saying that they were requested by the RTA to send patrols to regulate traffic but: "We do not know why the bridge was closed. We just diverted the traffic"
By the way, I loved this quote from Maitha. Pure bureaucrat-speak. "After the conduction of the technical experiment we noticed some minor issues, which were immediately tackled to reflect the RTA’s commitment to surpass all types of difficulties that could hamper the traffic smoothness."
First the water buses disappear the day after they're launched to a great fanfare, now this problem with the Floating Bridge.
I've asked many times before - when are those responsible for the chaaos and mismanagement going to be held responsible?
Full stories with Gulf News here and 7Days here.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Terrorist bloggers
Another threat to the blogging community is being reported on the BBC website.
Malaysia is threatening to use its anti-terrorism laws, which allow for indefinite imprisonment without trial or charge, against bloggers who 'insult the King or Islam'.
Their record suggests that this would be the thin end of the wedge with the danger that it would soon be expanded to bloggers who criticise the government.
As the story concludes: "With a general election on the horizon it seems the government is keen to send a signal to its online critics that it will only tolerate so much."
This story came as I was about to write of the Australian government's mishandling of its own terrorism laws in the case of Mohammed Haneef, an Indian doctor. That's another example of what many of us have been warning against - the abuse and misuse of terrorism laws. That's a more complicated story which I'll get onto later.
Meanwhile, the BBC story is here.
Malaysia is threatening to use its anti-terrorism laws, which allow for indefinite imprisonment without trial or charge, against bloggers who 'insult the King or Islam'.
Their record suggests that this would be the thin end of the wedge with the danger that it would soon be expanded to bloggers who criticise the government.
As the story concludes: "With a general election on the horizon it seems the government is keen to send a signal to its online critics that it will only tolerate so much."
This story came as I was about to write of the Australian government's mishandling of its own terrorism laws in the case of Mohammed Haneef, an Indian doctor. That's another example of what many of us have been warning against - the abuse and misuse of terrorism laws. That's a more complicated story which I'll get onto later.
Meanwhile, the BBC story is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
