Source: World Socialist Web Site Link: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/visa-a07.shtml Title: "Australian Federal Court upholds Kafka-like powers to cancel passports and visas", by Robert Morgan Date: August 7, 2008 Follow us down the rabbit hole. From the sound of it, the Australian government seems to be delighting in the New World Order asserted by the Bush administration in recent years. Of course, with so little media coverage of the situation, it is hard to tell what is going on. The World Socialist Web Site is often controversial and never posts pure news, so we might ask our friends down under to fill in the details. The cases in question concern Syed Hussain, an Australian citizen born in the UK who apparently presents a "significant risk" of "politically motivated violence"; Scott Parkin, a U.S. citizen allegedly deported for political views, and two Iraqi refugees named Sagar and Faisal. Morgan reports: According to Morgan, the state can refuse to show evidence to an applicant's lawyer, or, if it chooses, to allow the lawyer to see the evidence but prohibit disclosure to the client. Much like our center-ring sideshow in Guantanamo, these sorts of restrictions make effective legal representation difficult. How can you respond to charges when you do not know what they are? How can your attorney ask you about certain aspects of your case if he is not allowed to communicate the issues to you? Naturally, though, there is more here than we might see through a single, generally-despised media source. To the other, though, I'm amused. If I ever decided to travel to Australia, I wonder if my long participation at Sciforums would generate an adverse security assessment. Strange, strange, strange.
tiassa I searched the ABC for his name and i cant find anything on this specific case (if you wish to try the site is www.abc.net.au) but i wonder was the case before or after the london bombings? I dont know if you have herd of the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef, an indian doctor who Kevin Andrews cancaled the work vias of. He was origionally charged with giving material surport to terriousts (he surposedly gave his simcard to his cousin, quite a stupid argument i know) but the federal magistrate ruled he should be relaced on bail. The second he was releaced his visa was canceled by the imigration minster. In the end it was found that his visa should never have been cancled and he is able to come back here any time he choses i belive. It was an intirly stupid case but in the end imigration really doesnt fall under the courts jursitiction unfortunantly. However its important in that there is i belive an inquiry into the whole affair going on right now so this might shed some light on the whole situation. The imigration department is just about the most incopitant organisation in the whole country, they deported an australian citizan because she couldnt comunicate with them and i dont think they even bothered to check. Amanda vanstone lost her portflio over that little fuck up. I would send your post to a sentor to get more infomation but unfortuantly my favorite sentor isnt in parliment any more so i cantPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i found an opinion piece on the case, http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...of-syed-hussain/2008/07/17/1216163057648.html it looks to me like this could go to the high court
ok now onto the second case This one is a bit older so the case above wouldnt be included http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/ http://www.scottparkin.org/release18-07-08.htm this apears to be the lattest one and if accurate (which i cant garentiee) it says court ordered ASIO to realece the infomation but i cant work out which court it is. I thought it was the high court but i dont recognise the names of the judges so i cant be sure
I've found the Australian government to be liberal in some aspects compared to the US, but horrifically conservative in others. For example, I don't think there is a constitutional garuntee on free speech. Theres always a fear of pauline Hansen politics in the back of my mind. Irrational as it is.
to be fair there is a political push for one, the problem however is the same as it is with every consitutional amendment in that its hard to get them passed because of the requirement for a majority of people in a majority of states. there are however some laws which superseed the others, for instance the equal optunity acts all bind the crown.
If the government has any kind of internet tracking program that blacklists people as potentially politically violent, I'm probably on it, but then again, many of you probably are also; however, I'm actually not at risk of causing political violence. I was thinking that it would be nice to visit Australia in the future. These violations of procedural due process rights are absolutely disgusting. They don't even have good criteria for finding people, so they end up targeting innocent people. There are so many awful things going on right now such as wire tapping an extraordinary rendition that it makes me wonder if our rights are really rights or just privileges that we have when the government feels like it.
Aren't you meant to be allowed to hear the evidence against you ?, If it compromises national security, and can't be released in case you go free, then why bother with the trial in the first place ?
