Is Dr Haneef Tampa Mk II?

S

Sunfish

It would seem his crime is giving away a SIM card to a family member. No big deal! Travelers do it every day.

If the Howard government can't significantly upgrade this before the election then they will lose a lot of credibility and they already have no margin. And it is the government, not the judiciary, that has him behind bars. Many in the electorate still remember being hood-winked by the kid's overboard swindle.

Start planning for a Labor government. LOL
 
G'day Sunfish,
Many in the electorate still remember being hood-winked by the kid's overboard swindle.
Click to expand...
How was this ever a "swindle"? It seems some would have the PM of a country responsible for illegal immigrants throwing their own kids into the water. I didn't understand the ballyhoo then - and I'm wondering why you are posting this as being "a swindle" now?

Help me out here Sunfish - I can't see where you are coming from. Am I missing something?

Regards,
 
Les said:
How was this ever a "swindle"? It seems some would have the PM of a country responsible for illegal immigrants throwing their own kids into the water.
Click to expand...

Do you really accept the news reports of the time to be a fair representation of the events? That's OK. I'm part of the 10% on other matters too. Welcome to the minorities. :)
 
Loaning out a sim card to misguided and dangerous men, will not be the circuit breaker the Libs are after. Despite the conspiracy theorists, there will no Tampa this time. (Even though that did not win the election for the Libs in 2001)

A change of government is a fait accompli..
 
G'day Sunfish,
Do you really accept the news reports of the time to be a fair representation of the events?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily - but it sounds to me like you think John Howard threw these kids into the water.... Huh???? He was as much a pawn in this as we were. He is the recipient of "news" just as much as we were.

HOW is it a swindle?

Regards,
 
How was this ever a "swindle"? It seems some would have the PM of a country responsible for illegal immigrants throwing their own kids into the water. I didn't understand the ballyhoo then - and I'm wondering why you are posting this as being "a swindle" now?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If anything, it shows just how desperate individuals can be to want to come to such a great country as ours. I generally dont like to mix politics, but If anything, he (PM) should have been applauded for his leadership and strong stance on the issue. In regards to the current issue, I would rather be safe than sorry when it comes to the safety of our nation, and trust that those in power believe the same. :cool:

OK, off my soapbox now. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Les said:
Not necessarily - but it sounds to me like you think John Howard threw these kids into the water.... Huh???? He was as much a pawn in this as we were. He is the recipient of "news" just as much as we were.

HOW is it a swindle?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_overboard_affair
The Senate inquiry found that no children were thrown from SIEV 4. Evidence obtained by the committee revealed that the claim regarding children being thrown overboard was untrue.

The pictures which had been purported to show that children had been thrown into the sea were taken during a rescue after SIEV 4 had sunk by the illegals on board purposely. When this was discovered, Howard stated that he was acting on the intelligence he was given at the time. It was later revealed that Howard had been informed on 7 November that the claim was false. On 26 February 2006 Howard said,

"They irresponsibly sank the damn boat, which put their children in the water".

The Senate inquiry found that passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed self-harm, and, in the case of SIEV-7 on 22 October, a child had been thrown overboard and rescued by another asylum seeker.
Click to expand...
 
G'day Geoffw,

Thanks for the Wiki link. As stated therein "The neutrality of this article or section is disputed".

It comes down to "Who's right, who's wrong" or "he said, she said" But then this:-
With the election campaign underway, the Coalition was depicted as favouring strong border protection measures
Click to expand...
And, from where I sit, the moves made by the Coalition has brought these "illegal immigrants" from Indonesia to a halt. Sounds pretty successful to me.

I'm of the opinion that we DO need to show a strong stance against "queue jumping" otherwise we will end up with all sorts of undesirables on our shores. My hat's off to John Howard. Right, or wrong, he has succeeded in stemming this flood of leaky boats arriving from "off-shore". To my mind, this is goodness. Whether Tampa or children overboard, I admire the man who saw that it needed a strong stance to quell the tide.

Or, would you prefer a different scenario (and I don't mean just you, Geoff, but all others reading this).

Regards,
 
Les said:
moves made by the Coalition has brought these "illegal immigrants" from Indonesia to a halt.
Click to expand...

Hi Les, do you really, honestly believe this?

Les said:
I'm of the opinion that we DO need to show a strong stance against "queue jumping"
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'queue jumping'. Each application is based on it's merits, regardless of when the person entered the country. The term 'queue jumping' was coined by Johnny and the media to get people riled up about 'illegals'.

Do those of you who oppose boat people ever stop to think about why people would risk their lives to escape a country (and usually a Govt)? Have you ever been in these people's shoes? Have you ever experienced what life is like for them?

I know someone who came here on a boat. The story I was told sent shivers down my spine. It's good to know that some people here are happy for them to be sent back to where they came from to almost certainly die. But hey, maybe they'll learn not to 'jump the queue' right?

Mark
 
Sunfish said:
It would seem his crime is giving away a SIM card to a family member. No big deal! Travelers do it every day.

If the Howard government can't significantly upgrade this before the election then they will lose a lot of credibility and they already have no margin. And it is the government, not the judiciary, that has him behind bars. Many in the electorate still remember being hood-winked by the kid's overboard swindle.

Start planning for a Labor government. LOL
Click to expand...

The shadow immigration minister supported the move, so if you are a terrorist hugger I wouldnt be ticking the labor box just yet
 
Sunfish said:
Why, for your God's sake, does believing in the proper process of law turn me into a freekinnn terrorist hugger?
Click to expand...

you were the one who linked the children overboard affair, the liberal election campaign and this doctor bloke altogether! I assumed if you were against the guy being locked up then you were for him = terrorist hugger. Proper process of law saw the judge order his release and proper use of the immigration system saw (in agreement from both sides of the political fence) his visa cancelled.
 
G'day Mark,
There is no such thing as 'queue jumping'. Each application is based on it's merits, regardless of when the person entered the country. The term 'queue jumping' was coined by Johnny and the media to get people riled up about 'illegals'.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's a "coined phrase" for sure. But where would this load of tourists have landed? In Sydney, to be processed as a legal immigrant? I don't think so. They would have landed at some out-of-the-way place in the North and have endeavoured to make their way into Australia by stealth.

Do those of you who oppose boat people ever stop to think about why people would risk their lives to escape a country (and usually a Govt)? Have you ever been in these people's shoes? Have you ever experienced what life is like for them?
Click to expand...
No, Mark - I haven't. Have you?

I know someone who came here on a boat. The story I was told sent shivers down my spine.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are many "chills down the spine" stories out there. And, I guess, I wouldn't blame them for trying to escape a problem.

It's good to know that some people here are happy for them to be sent back to where they came from to almost certainly die. But hey, maybe they'll learn not to 'jump the queue' right?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Nothing like sarcasm to bring a point undone. There are legal ways that they can enter Australia. Why do they not try those first? And, it might mean putting themselves in a "detention camp" for a period. Along with many others. But their actions put themselves out of this "queue" - why is that Mark? Why don't they go the LEGAL way?

But, if they are just so FRANTIC that they will try ANY way - well then, is this Australia's fault? And should we be "the bunny" and just accept them?

Tell me more, Mark. I'm not convinced yet,

Regards,
 
ps. dont take any of my comments too personally - I disagree with about 50% of the political beliefs of the population and about 90% of their religious beliefs. it's bound to lead to arguments.
 
Coming from a justice back ground , 99.9% of the time where there is smoke there is fire! Just the required level of evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt varies from case to case. IMHO this case is no different.
 
Hi all,

This has the potential to be a really explosive thread!! (no pun intended).

While I agree with Rixter that where there is smoke there is usually fire, I am not so sure about the 99.9%. However I am a great believer in innocent until proven guilty, the very fabric of our 'free' society. It is also what we go to war over 'to preserve our way of life'.

In the Haneef case, the evidence released to the public, is of leaving a sim card with a relative that he was staying with while in England.
If that is really enough for some to say 'lock him awway and throw away the key', then does the same apply to the taxi driver who drove him to the airport, or the ticket clerk who sold him a plane ticket or, or, or....

My suspicion is that we do not know everything, but if it was just an innocent passing of a sim card to a relative, then how does this man prove his innocence???
Hence there is a very large weakness in the laws that allows him to be detained in this way, that really go against what a 'free' society is all about.

Would a politician use these types of events for political purposes, heaven forbid, I'm sure their moral integrity would not allow them to. :rolleyes:

bye
 
but the justice system moved to protect him by releasing him so where is the injustice? The fact that he is not an Australian and we reserve the right to boot him out is very convenient. If he was a home grown terrorist such as hicks then we would be stuck with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Peter 14.7
Election 2004 - the main focus
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
bicko
bicko
Sunstone
The Story of the late Dr Peter Clyne
2
Replies
24
Views
11K
redwing
redwing
Back
Top