Just received an email concerning this news item..................
http://headlines.sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13924046
so do you agree with Australia's stand and would you welcome the same in your own country
Extremists........Should we follow Australia's lead
by fifi40 4 Replies latest social current
-
-
IP_SEC
page is offline right now
-
fifi40
Sorted.........I'd made a mistake on the page :)
-
Mary
so do you agree with Australia's stand and would you welcome the same in your own country
yes and yes.
-
ozziepost
Australia "leads", eh? That's nice. It's true though that the government is simply expressing the views of themajority downunder where we have a land that's known for its tolerance of many views and backgrounds.
The basic facts of the article are correct (if a little dated) but I'm not sure the article's 'objective'.
Take for example, this:
its small Muslim community
How small is "small"? It appears to be quite a big "small" from where I sit!
You may be interested in this news item of this evening: (Note that both Opposition and Governement agree on this course of action.)
Monday July 16, 07:44 PM
Haneef challenge 'may be successful'
Experts say a legal challenge to Immigration Minister Kevin Andrew's decision to cancel Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef's visa may prove successful.
But while civil libertarians and the minor parties said the government's controversial move undermined the rule of law, Labor gave Mr Andrews its support.
Mr Andrews revoked Haneef's 457 temporary skills visa on Monday afternoon on character grounds - just hours after Brisbane Magistrate Jacqui Payne granted him bail on a charge of providing support to terrorism.
The Migration Act allows a visa to be cancelled if a person fails to meet a character test, including whether they are suspected to have links to a criminal organisation.
The decision means the Gold Coast Hospital registrar will be held in Villawood immigration detention centre while his court case is pending.
He is yet to enter a plea.
Human rights lawyer Greg Barns, a former Howard government adviser, said the decision "looks bad".
It appeared as though the government had used the Migration Act to keep Haneef in detention when the bid to stop him being granted bail failed, he said.
Mr Barns said he doubted Mr Andrews' decision to cancel the visa could be considered "reasonable" - the terminology required under the Migration Act.
"Mr Andrews' decision can be challenged on the grounds of bias or taking into account irrelevant considerations in making his decision - this includes political considerations," he said.
"It is doubtful that Mr Andrews' decision is reasonable as he suggests, given the weakness of the case against Dr Haneef and that he is (an) innocent man."
Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo said he would lodge an application with the Federal Court to review the decision within days.
Senior University of NSW constitutional law lecturer Andrew Lynch also predicted Haneef would have a case to appeal against the decision.
He doubted the government was basing its decision on any extra information, saying police would have used all the evidence in their unsuccessful application for Haneef's bail to be refused.
The decision to cancel Haneef's visa seemed to be based on him being a relative of men implicated in the UK terrorism attacks, which was "unsatisfactory", he said.
And he rejected Mr Andrews' assertions that the decision to cancel his visa was not prejudging Haneef's guilt or innocence.
"He's saying that Haneef's visa's cancelled because he's caught up in this, whereas the bail was granted because of a judicial finding that it wasn't," Dr Lynch told Sky News.
Cameron Murphy, the secretary of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties (ACCL), said the government was undermining the independence of the court system.
"The reason we have an independent court system is so these incredibly important decisions are made for the right reasons, and aren't subject to political interference," he said.
Mr Murphy said it was not the first time the government had acted in such a way, likening it to the case of Melbourne man Jack Thomas, who last year had a control order placed on him days after the Victorian Court of Appeal quashed his terrorism-related convictions.
Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said the decision was a perversion of the Migration Act and a clear contempt of the court.
"A country where justice is not allowed to take its course and the presumption of innocence is reversed on a government whim is not a democracy - it's a dictatorship," he said.
But Labor said it supported Mr Andrews' decision to cancel Haneef's visa.
Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said based on the information that had been made public, Mr Andrews has acted in the proper manner.