Oppression of Human Rights in Australia

[GodsoldierClintus]

Is it just me or what?

Hicks - He was stupid, whatever. I don't care what you think about him. He was an Australian citizen. Even if he was a traitor to our country - he should have been protected and tried under the Australian system.

Haneef - what the? He wasn't an Australian citizen, but once again under the guise of "terrorism" our country failed to protect a person without just cause. How can a man that went to see his wife who had just had a caesarian - lose his job, be held under arrest uncharged without reason. For what? Because he was related to a terrorist. Yes that should carry with it a bit of caution - but the man was presumed guilty before he actually was. Why is there a different set of standards for Haneef and others? Was it his skin color? Was it his religion? On what grounds does this stop the AFP doing it to anyone for suspicion of "terrorism"? What if I was a Christian missionary in Afghanistan? What if part of my work included outreach to Muslims? Would that pertain me a terrorist? Would my legal right be gone because of that?

These terrorist powers have gone far enough. And if you haven't even thought about your own civil liberties perhaps you should do so.

 

[tigercub]

Scary isn't it? We thought we had rights...protection...

ner ner (says the AFP) we know better!

 

[SemperFidelis]

If you betray your country, surel you give up the right to call upon their aid when things don't go your way. I mean, despite what some people think, citizenship is a 2 way deal. We, as citizens, are loyal to our country, hold true to its values etc. etc., and the Government is supposed to look after you in any way it can. However, like any deal or relationship, if one party decides it is no longer going to hold up it's end of the deal, the deal is off. Hick's chose to ake up arms against Australia and it's allies, and at the same point he relinquinshed the right to call upon our aid when he wanted it.

Haneef was a mess up, no doubt, BUT, to be fair to the AFP, they have a hard job (generally speaking, not just in the Haneef affair). If they go after and arrest the wrong person, they get all kinds of abuse about human rights violations and eroding our civil liberties and what not, but I bet if they didn't act and someone did blow up a train, or a building, or something similar, they would cop the flak for not doing anything. Sometimes it seems very much like the Government and her agencies are in a loose-loose situation in cases like this.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Is it just me or what?

Hicks - He was stupid, whatever. I don't care what you think about him. He was an Australian citizen. Even if he was a traitor to our country - he should have been protected and tried under the Australian system.

The problem is he couldn’t be tried here, because he committed crimes against citizens of other countries, whilst in another country himself. So we either say “oh well, bad luck to the people he oppressed, we’ll just let him go”, or we try and take some retrospective action to make sure we don’t set a precedent.

I applaud your sentiments, but there are about 1billion people who should be in the line ahead of this guy when it comes to receiving people’s support.

 

[GodsoldierClintus]

I don't really care about Hicks...it's the fact he was an Australian citizen. Read what I said again. He was our citizen, he deserved our governments protection. What is to stop that from happening to any of us in another country?

 

[SemperFidelis]

I don't really care about Hicks...it's the fact he was an Australian citizen. Read what I said again. He was our citizen, he deserved our governments protection. What is to stop that from happening to any of us in another country?

No, he gave up th right to that protection when he took up arms against our country and our allies. At that point he lost the right to expect anything from our government. What exactly is it you expected the government to do for him?

And I would say that the same happening to you or me is not really a valid concern unless you plan to go and take up arms agaisnt Australia.

 

[GodsoldierClintus]

No I think it is perfectly valid. As far as I know he has not breached any Australian law. He should have been returned to Australian custody and tried in Australia. We were not at "war with terrorism" when Hicks was in Afghanistan and as far as I know, he didn't attack any Australian soldiers or any of it's allies. There has been no proof, except a willingness to sacrifice Hicks for the sake of national image.

There is nothing stopping the same from happening from any other citizen because any allegation can be made up against any one us in a foreign country, or dare I say, in Australia and no proof would be needed, except under the guise of "terrorism"

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

No I think it is perfectly valid. As far as I know he has not breached any Australian law. He should have been returned to Australian custody and tried in Australia. We were not at "war with terrorism" when Hicks was in Afghanistan and as far as I know, he didn't attack any Australian soldiers or any of it's allies. There has been no proof, except a willingness to sacrifice Hicks for the sake of national image.

Please tell me you don’t think Hicks joined the Taliban for fun. That’s like saying I want to join the Waffen SS and guard prison camps because I like the snappy uniform and think the salutes are cool, and that I should go free because the victims were Jewish and not Australian.

I agree with you that human rights need protecting; I’d even agree that some of the terror powers go too far. But I think you’re barking up the wrong tree using Hicks as an example – for my mind he’s an example of why we need better laws to bring people like him to trial, in a similar way that we changed the law to stop paedophiles using a similar loophole to exploit overseas children.

 

[Anduril]

Hicks thought Osama 'lovely man', court told
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/20/2124510.htm?section=justin

"He's a lovely brother - the only reason the West call him a ... terrorist is because he got the money to take action."

What a charming fellow. Can't say I'll be losing too much sleep over his stretch at Guantanamo Bay.

 

[Lee_Lee]

I hate to say it but Australia as a whole under the Howard government were extremely successful economically but this was at the expense of delievering on human rights.

The Hicks thing is definately something we should have dealt with. He was an Australian citizen being held in extremely poor conditions without being charged....that is unacceptable. Similarly with the Barli 9, we should be getting them home (thankfully Rudd is moving in the right direction with that).

In terms of Dr Hanuf....he was allowed to be treated the way he was because of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005, which severely violated the rights of Australians. It introduced the ability to detain people for up to 14 days without charge, but 'suspiscion' they may be involved in a terrorist threat, the ability to search, putting people on a control order where they can be on house arrest for up to a year, a shoot to kill clause...just crazy stuff that some how with everyone's fear got passed through parliment...

I mean we could talk all day about the decrease in human rights of those in Australia (just look at the refugee legislation!, or the Indigenous issues!)....

Hopefully with Rudd in control our human rights record might come back on track- within his first few weeks of being PM he has done more for human rights then Howard did in 11 years!.....

-LeeLee

 

[John Spong is wrong]

Is it just me or what?

Hicks - He was stupid, whatever. I don't care what you think about him. He was an Australian citizen. Even if he was a traitor to our country - he should have been protected and tried under the Australian system.

Haneef - what the? He wasn't an Australian citizen, but once again under the guise of "terrorism" our country failed to protect a person without just cause. How can a man that went to see his wife who had just had a caesarian - lose his job, be held under arrest uncharged without reason. For what? Because he was related to a terrorist. Yes that should carry with it a bit of caution - but the man was presumed guilty before he actually was. Why is there a different set of standards for Haneef and others? Was it his skin color? Was it his religion? On what grounds does this stop the AFP doing it to anyone for suspicion of "terrorism"? What if I was a Christian missionary in Afghanistan? What if part of my work included outreach to Muslims? Would that pertain me a terrorist? Would my legal right be gone because of that?

These terrorist powers have gone far enough. And if you haven't even thought about your own civil liberties perhaps you should do so.

Amen brother!
These anti-terrorist powers have indeed gone far enough. They were modelled on the USA Patriot Act (scary).

 

[Monarchist]

No, he gave up th right to that protection when he took up arms against our country and our allies. At that point he lost the right to expect anything from our government. What exactly is it you expected the government to do for him?

And I would say that the same happening to you or me is not really a valid concern unless you plan to go and take up arms agaisnt Australia.

Yeah I have to agree with this statement. He supported another regime as opposed to his own country.
Lets just pray our Government dont become as bad as the Afghan government one day

 

[Cooch]

I don't really care about Hicks...it's the fact he was an Australian citizen. Read what I said again. He was our citizen, he deserved our governments protection.

Are you saying that because Hicks was an Australian,that the Australian government should ensure that he never had to face the consequences of his actions?

The responsibility of our government in that situation should be to ensure that it's citizens get a fair trial with adequate legal representation. The reality is that Hick did come to trial under a legal system with the presumption of innocence. Hicks did have extensive legal representation (who, BTW, were responsible for most of the delay in his case coming to trial) and he did have an opportunity to plead "not guilty".... an opportunity of which he did not avail himself.

What is to stop that from happening to any of us in another country?

,sigh>Not breaking the laws of another country would be a damned good start. Every time we go overseas we take some responsibility on ourselves for knowing that (a) the laws may be different and (b) the legal system may not be as sympathetic to the accused as ours is.

IMHO, the case of David Hicks has nothing to do with any purported degradation of human rights in Australia.

Peter

 

[TheDag]

No, he gave up th right to that protection when he took up arms against our country and our allies. At that point he lost the right to expect anything from our government. What exactly is it you expected the government to do for him?

And I would say that the same happening to you or me is not really a valid concern unless you plan to go and take up arms agaisnt Australia.

Ok lets play hypothetical. Say the Australian Government decided all Athiests should not be allowed to have children living with them and can not own any property. If you had kids and owned your own house and they came to take it away would you really say oh well thats the law or would you fight? If you fight does that then mean you lose any rights and protections you have as an Australian citizen? After all I don't hear people complaining about Afghanis fighting against their own government when the Taliban were in power. I also don't hear people saying Iraqi's who faught Saddam don't deserve any protection. On the contrary. We say they are heroes. We help put them in power. At what point does one forfeit all rights as an Australian citizen?

Also bear in mind that we have double standards when it comes to citizenship. If you were born in Australia and you do something really bad they can't deport you. However if you were born in another country and have become an Australian citizen and commit the same crime then your citizenship can be revoked and you can be deported. So not all citizens are equal. Why is that?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Also bear in mind that we have double standards when it comes to citizenship. If you were born in Australia and you do something really bad they can't deport you. However if you were born in another country and have become an Australian citizen and commit the same crime then your citizenship can be revoked and you can be deported. So not all citizens are equal. Why is that?

I don't think you can be deported. The govt can only revoke your citizenship if it can be proved that you obtained it fraudulently (which is fair enough). There have been a couple of cases involving permanent residents being deported (after committing multiple crimes) which again is fair enough.

 

[ebia]

If you betray your country, surel you give up the right to call upon their aid when things don't go your way. I mean, despite what some people think, citizenship is a 2 way deal. We, as citizens, are loyal to our country, hold true to its values etc. etc., and the Government is supposed to look after you in any way it can. However, like any deal or relationship, if one party decides it is no longer going to hold up it's end of the deal, the deal is off. Hick's chose to ake up arms against Australia and it's allies, and at the same point he relinquinshed the right to call upon our aid when he wanted it.

Until he is tried under a real legal system we don't know that.

Yes, part of the country's duty to all its citizens is to ensure they receive a fair trial if accused of something. Not allow them to be locked up illegally for years and then put through some kangaroo cout.

The responsibility of our government in that situation should be to ensure that it's citizens get a fair trial with adequate legal representation.

No he did not, and that's the issue. He was not tried by a legal system that we, most international observers, or even the country that tried him, would consider legal or acceptable. We only allowed it to happen because Johnny didn't want to upset his best mate.

 

[ebia]

No, he gave up th right to that protection when he took up arms against our country and our allies. At that point he lost the right to expect anything from our government. What exactly is it you expected the government to do for him?

And I would say that the same happening to you or me is not really a valid concern unless you plan to go and take up arms agaisnt Australia.

I would expect our government to do exactly what Britain did for their citizens - insist the US try them properly in a constitutional and legal manner or send them home.

 

[TheDag]

If you betray your country, surel you give up the right to call upon their aid when things don't go your way. I mean, despite what some people think, citizenship is a 2 way deal. We, as citizens, are loyal to our country, hold true to its values etc. etc., and the Government is supposed to look after you in any way it can. However, like any deal or relationship, if one party decides it is no longer going to hold up it's end of the deal, the deal is off. Hick's chose to ake up arms against Australia and it's allies, and at the same point he relinquinshed the right to call upon our aid when he wanted it.

I just had another thought in regards to what you said here. (Yeah I'm a slow thinker!)

Hicks did not take up arms against his country. If you believe he did then anyone who murders somebody is taking up arms against his country. To take up arms against your country then there needs to be a war. They have gone to great lengths to say the action in Afghanistan is not a war so they can ignore the international treaties they have signed (think Geneva convention) and not treat them as prisoners of war. So Hicks is guilty of murder or attempted murder in which case he should not have been tried by a military court or it is a war and he should not have been bought to trial but rather released back to his own country as per the Geneva convention. Either way the Australian Government has failed in its duty. I'm going to stick to the it isn't a war becasue that is what Howard and Bush kept telling us.

 

[Cooch]

Until he is tried under a real legal system we don't know that.

Yes, part of the country's duty to all its citizens is to ensure they receive a fair trial if accused of something. Not allow them to be locked up illegally for years and then put through some kangaroo cout.

.

Hicks was tried under a system that has a presumption of innocence.
Hicks was permitted adequate and competent legal representation.
His legal representation was able to succesfully challenge aspects of the trial process. This is the reason that Hicks spent so long in detention - because his legal team spent a vast amount of time and effort challenging the system, and very little in actually arguing the evidence of his case.

Please note that it was Hicks' legal team again which finally prevented his case from ever coming to trial by pleading guilty on his behalf. This is an admission that Hicks had done exactly as charged ...... and is something that they could have done years before. That would have taken Hicks out of Gitmo PDQ.

Hicks has freely admitted joining, training with and attempting to assist a terrorist group. Hicks' lawyers prevented his case coming to trial.

Try for a little perspective here.

Peter

 

[Cooch]

Hicks did not take up arms against his country. If you believe he did then anyone who murders somebody is taking up arms against his country. To take up arms against your country then there needs to be a war. They have gone to great lengths to say the action in Afghanistan is not a war so they can ignore the international treaties they have signed (think Geneva convention) and not treat them as prisoners of war. So Hicks is guilty of murder or attempted murder in which case he should not have been tried by a military court or it is a war and he should not have been bought to trial but rather released back to his own country as per the Geneva convention. Either way the Australian Government has failed in its duty. I'm going to stick to the it isn't a war becasue that is what Howard and Bush kept telling us.

Hicks joined, trained with and supported a known terrorist organisation that has as its aim the overthrow of Australia's (amongst others) system of government, civil rights, and way of life. He chose to arm himself and participate as a civilian combatant in a conflict on the side opposed to that which was supported by the Australian government and for which Australian troops were fighting.

It is highly questionable as to whether the Geneva Conventions apply in Hicks' case, as he does not appear to meet the criteria. Neither does Al Qaida or the Taliban.
If, however, we accept that Hicks should be treated as a POW, then it follows that he should still be in detention because the conflict has not yet finished.

What has actually happened is that Hicks has admitted - and plead guilty to - giving material support to an organisation that has openly boasted about its many murders. Therefore the charge for which he has been sentenced is very similar to "accessory to murder" or "conspiracy to murder". In this light, especially when his time in detention was considered when sentence was pronounced, Hicks has spent no more time behind bars than he ought, and (IMHO) less than he should have.

Peter