Australia: We don't need no stinkin' evidence (?)

Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
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.

Two decisions handed down by the Australian Federal Court on July 15 confirmed the federal government's virtually unfettered power to revoke a citizen's passport or cancel a non-citizen's visa, without giving them reasons or access to any evidence, thus making legal challenges almost impossible.

In effect, the decisions mean that anyone can be stripped of the most basic legal and democratic rights—to live and work or study where one chooses, to travel and participate in social and political life—without even being able to find out what, if any, case exists against them.

The plight of the four applicants in the two cases resembles that of Josef K, the character in Franz Kafka's novel The Trial, who awakens one morning and, for reasons never revealed, is arrested and prosecuted for an unspecified crime.

(Morgan)
Click to expand...

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:

In February 2006, Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock issued a certificate against Hussain. The AAT proceedings began with an unidentified ASIO officer giving evidence before being cross-examined. Hussain was then ordered to leave the AAT hearing room while further evidence was given against him. The process was repeated the next day, with neither Hussain nor his lawyers permitted to remain in the hearing room.

The AAT conceded there was "no evidence" to suggest that Hussain would "engage in military jihad type activities" and stated that "his relations with people who may hold extremist views appear innocent". However, on the basis of the government's secret evidence, the AAT concluded Hussain had not been "honest" in responses he made in the hearing. It therefore formed the opinion that the decision to revoke Hussain's passport was correct.

• • •​

Scott Parkin, a United States citizen and antiwar, anti-corporate activist, was deported from Australia solely on the basis of his political views and activities. He entered Australia legally in June 2005 on a tourist visa. Before the visa expired, ASIO issued an adverse security assessment to the immigration minister and Parkin was summarily deported in September 2005, with no right or opportunity to challenge his removal (unless he remained in immigration detention until his appeal was heard).

Parkin was not accused of breaching any visa condition or committing a criminal offence. However, in August 2005 he took part in a series of publicly advertised demonstrations and workshops against the Iraq war, US corporate giant Halliburton, which has made billions of dollars out of the war, and a "Global CEO Conference" organised by Forbes magazine (see "Australian government to deport American antiwar activist").

Sagar and Faisal are both Iraqi asylum seekers who were detained in Australian immigration detention on the Pacific island of Nauru from September 2002. In September 2005, the immigration department finally recognised both men as refugees, but ASIO then issued adverse security assessments against them, and they were denied refugee protection visas.

Together with Parkin, the Iraqi applicants stated that they had no idea why ASIO had made its adverse security assessments. Parkin insisted that "no facts existed which could justify an adverse assessment". The judges accepted that the applicants had a genuine complaint, acknowledging that they "allege the absence of facts, the result of which, they say, is that the adverse security assessments could not have been made".

(ibid)
Click to expand...

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 cant:(
 
ok now onto the second case

Scott Parkin vindicated by Federal Court ruling

The World Today - Friday, 3 November , 2006 12:22:00
Reporter: Alison Caldwell
ELEANOR HALL: The Federal Government suffered a legal setback this morning in its attempt to keep national security assessments of individuals, secret.

A Federal Court judge declared that the deported US activist Scott Parkin and two Iraqi asylum seekers do have the right to know why the Government declared them to be a security risk.

ASIO and the Federal Government invoked the National Security Act in refusing to release the assessments.

But their arguments did not sway the judge and Scott Parkin was ecstatic when the decision was handed down, as Alison Caldwell reports.

ALISON CALDWELL: American activist Scott Parkin came to Australia last year to share his ideas about so-called "non-violent" means of protest.

While he was in Melbourne, he was apprehended by agents with the Australian Federal Police, on the basis of a negative security assessment by ASIO.

Deemed to be a risk to national security, his visa was cancelled and he was deported back to California.

With no explanation given, he was also charged for his detention and subsequent deportation.

Today a Federal Court judge announced Scott Parkin should have a right to know why he was deemed a risk to national security.

Scott Parkin spoke to ABC Local Radio in Melbourne from his home in San Francisco soon after the judgment was delivered.

SCOTT PARKIN: I'm ecstatic. I'm very happy that the judge, Justice Sundberg, handed this down and has... it's helping give me an opportunity to clear my name as well as help my co-plaintiffs get out of the limbo which they've been in for the last five years or so.

ALISON CALDWELL: Scott Parkin eventually wants his visa reinstated so he can return to Australia.

SCOTT PARKIN: I would be thrilled to come back to Australia and visit all my friends, and supporters who have been there for me for over a year now.

As well as all the people I met when I travelled to your country last year, before all this happened.

ALISON CALDWELL: But that's still a long way off. ASIO has the right to appeal to the High Court to block access to the security assessment.

The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock can still invoke national security to prevent Scott Parkin getting access to the material.

Scott Parkin believes ultimately he'll be vindicated, but he's also aware of the risk that material will be revealed which may embarrass him.

SCOTT PARKIN: I've gone on record of what I did when I was there, and I would be happy for that to be public or for me to at least be able to view what they supposedly said I did.

I have a pretty good knowledge of what I did when I travelled to your country, and I feel confident that I'll be vindicated once these files are looked at.

ALISON CALDWELL: The decision also has repercussions for two Iraqi asylum seekers deemed refugees, but refused entry to Australia on the basis of negative national security assessments. Mohammed Sagar and Muhammad Faisal have been held in detention in Nauru since September 2002. Muhammad Faisal is now in psychiatric care in Brisbane.

ANNE GOOLEY: It's not just important for those people, but it's important for all of us in terms of when the Government relies on national security reasons when even they take action against Australian citizens, we are entitled to know why.

ALISON CALDWELL: The men's lawyer is Anne Gooley from Maurice Blackburn Cashman. She says the decision means Australia is not a security state.

ANNE GOOLEY: This morning, the court ordered that the Government give us discovery of all the relevant documents involving Scott's deportation and the security assessments of Muhammad Faisal and Mohammed Sagar, who you may recall are the last two remaining Nauruan refugees, one who's in Australia under medical treatment, but one who is still in Nauru. So for all three men, we now have orders for discovery that we have to get access to the documents that led to the decision to assess these people as a threat to our national security.

ELEANOR HALL: Lawyer Anne Gooley, ending the report from Alison Caldwell in Melbourne.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1780641.htm
Click to expand...

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.
 
For example, I don't think there is a constitutional guarantee on free speech.
Click to expand...

You're right. There isn't one. Australia doesn't have any kind of constitutional Bill of Rights.
 
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 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top