July 24, 2007

those were the days, my friend...


from the depths of rg's picture files emerges this priceless costello moment. the shot was printed in the age last may - just before howard's handing over of the leadership was alleged to occur. it's dark and brooding, but unmistakably funny; costello is laughing at himself, bringing his own 'sound of music' flair to parliament house. no doubt better, happier times for peter, considering today's headline in the same paper: costello no vote winner: poll.

July 18, 2007

burnside qc

over the years rg has had the inspiring privilege of watching and listening to the shimmering brilliance that is julian burnside qc full flight in the federal court. in another life rg will dedicate a blog to burnside's stillness, composure, wit, sharpness, integrity and glasses, but for the time being will just share an article from today's age written by the straight talker himself.

a case of justice denied, burnside's precis of the mohamed haneef case to date, is marked with the thoroughness, thoughtfulness, and political savvy for which he is renowned. burnside's willingness, nay obligation, to pull no punches re the afp, immigration minister, attorney-general and pm is as educational as it is refreshing, and a move entirely befitting the president of liberty victoria. burnside concludes his opinion with:

the implications of the haneef case are very alarming. it is another indication of what the howard government is prepared to do, especially in an election year. the immigration minister is willing to lend himself to the police. the attorney-general is willing to take advantage of the minister's impropriety. haneef's ability to defend himself has been wilfully compromised.


the character of any government can be measured by the way it treats those who are powerless. this government will use every dirty trick to crush haneef, regardless of his guilt or innocence. in the war to save democracy we are at risk of throwing away its most important features.

not only that, but rg feels the government would likely fail their own character test were it applied; the thought of deporting howard et al is too thrilling a proposition to indulge.

in a social and political climate such as ours currently, rg has moments of total loss of faith in humanity and can only see the chronic ugliness that stems from that; then there's moments of promise, hope and burnside, and for a moment at least rg feels there is a vibrant, intelligent and voracious culture alive and well in australia. how did i ever doubt it...

July 17, 2007

separation of what?

rg has been experiencing confusion while following the saga of alleged terrorist dr mohamed haneef. this makes rg ponder, how much confusion or misunderstanding is the general community feeling trying to grasp the finer points of this case? no -scrap that: what about understanding the more global aspects, such as the role of the court and government?

on a high level, dr haneef has been charged with 'recklessly' supporting a terrorist organisation after he provided his sim card to someone allegedly plotting uk car bomb attacks. haneef was detained; investigations, searches and questioning ensued, and yesterday haneef was granted bail by a magistrate. this is where rg's understanding becomes muddied.

'separation of powers' is a phrase bandied around the political sphere, however it appears the actual concept and meaning of the term has been lost and, like that old chestnut 'presumption of innocence', has been downgraded to a non-core concern. it's not a complicated notion: state/government do their thing; judiciary does theirs, never the twain shall meet.

when a magistrate makes a determination in a case having considered evidence from the australian federal police's exhaustive investigations, one could be forgiven for thinking it ought apply. however if you're the immigration minister, apparently you have the luxury of overriding said legal determination.

which begs the question, what's the point of the separation of powers? is it something that only applies when convenient, or is it something that can be brushed aside when the government strongly believes the judiciary simply got it wrong? and how can that be, given both the government and the court have been privy to the same evidence?

rg has no doubt dr haneef did have associations with alleged bomb plotters in the uk - he was, after all, a relative. but what if this is a big mess of circumstance and coincidence? how on earth, given kevin andrews' cancellation of haneef's visa on character grounds, can this man be afforded a presumption of innocence (should he not be deported and be free to stand trial) when the australian government has made it utterly clear he is undesirable to this country? rg is waiting for john howard to rehash his eloquent 'we will decide who comes to this country' caterwauling. if the pm has swapped his praying for rain with a prayer for another national security platform to launch his election campaign, a cynic could be forgiven for thinking his prayers have been answered by the patron saint of dumb luck.

so now haneef and his lawyers have a decision to make: if he's bailed, it's off to villawood detention centre; if he's not, he stays within the queensland remand system. what a non-choice. as succinctly put in the sydney morning herald, 'the visa cancellation is a mechanism that [will] ensure that Haneef, whether guilty or not guilty of the terrorism charges, never tastes freedom again in Australia.' what a terribly australian way to treat someone so obviously unaustralian.

July 2, 2007

footy and chicks

rg has been perplexed by recent coverage of alan didak's poor judgment in sinking a few with accused killer christopher hudson.

didak may have been drinking with a wanted criminal, but realistically, how is he supposed to know that at the time - sure, the firing of gunshots from a moving car may have been a giveaway, but not when you're sitting at a bar talking shit. rg has certainly drained bottles of red with people that perception afforded by sobriety would have rendered thoroughly unappealing (and it flows that others may have felt this way about rg). what to do? not much, really; what's done is done. shake your head and chalk it up to not listening to or learning from experience.

however what surprises rg most about this kerfuffle is the absence of any concern about the venue within which the two met and got chummy - a table-top dancing club. mere months have passed since the almighty furore focusing on vilification of women in football occurred thanks to some on-field biffo between des hedland, adam selwood and a tattoo. at the time didak's coach mick malthouse commented, "at every club we have lectures every year on drugs, racial vilification and, more recently, positive attitudes to women, which inform the players of what the afl finds acceptable." obviously the afl have found strip-clubs present positive images of women.

in the light of the didak incident, collingwood have banned players from attending strip- and table-top dancing establishments. rg queries why this is even necessary - surely attendance of such clubs offends the afl's policy on respect and responsibility, not to mention women.

collingwood's new ceo stated that didak did not break any club rules and therefore should not be reprimanded for his boorish and stupid behaviour (rg's words). but since when do team rules supersede afl rules and policy? rg guesses probably when it's convenient and you've got a talented player you want on field for a big match. as caroline wilson writes, "there is no rule at the magpies that states that you cannot drink heavily at strip clubs during the season, pick up with a hell's angel for several hours, witness at close hand two shooting incidents — one with police in the vicinity — and then fail to report either to the police, your football club or even your lawyer."

rg guesses that's good news for didak and collingwood. and nothing but more bad news for women.