Rights and wrongs
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 The Australian state 10 comments
While the right and left have argued over the nature of the punishment, what we have seen with the intervention is a denial of a basic right in front of the law to be judged whether to receive the punishment in the first place.
A victory for the judiciary, not civil liberties
Wednesday, 22 August 2007 Key posts, The Australian state Comments Off
To read much of the Judge’s decision and the media comment about it, you could get the impression that this is all about the detention of Haneef and the excessive use of anti-terrorism powers.
Rats unsure which way to jump
Thursday, 16 August 2007 Media analysis Comments Off
The equivocal response of the press gallery reflects their increasing defensiveness as many of the assumptions built up during the Howard ascendancy have been undermined over this year.
Power is shifting away
Monday, 6 August 2007 The Australian state Comments Off
These anti-terrorist powers, and the Ministers responsible for them, are not the main issue in this debate. This is less about Haneef’s civil liberties than a fight between the government and the judiciary over who uses these powers.
Who is Andrews arguing with?
Wednesday, 1 August 2007 The Australian state Comments Off
The problem with the Magistrate’s ruling was a political one, because it added to the impression that Haneef was being held on no evidence and undermined the credibility of the government’s use of the anti-terror laws. That was why the Minister was compelled to intervene with a political response.
Anti-politics masquerading as civil liberties
Tuesday, 31 July 2007 The Australian state Comments Off
Anti-terrorism legislation that brings in special powers to deal with what look like nihilistic amateurs, as though they were a paramilitary organisation like the IRA, was clearly introduced by the government for political, rather than operational purposes.
