The Measurement of Justice
We would do well to heed the words of the Israeli professor Naomi Chazan in the recent Gandel Oration in Melbourne: “there is one standard and one standard for all, and the challenge that is posed by terrorism is how to defend the rights of those that we don’t agree with … How can we defend the rights, the basic human and civil rights, of those whose ideas we simply abhor? It is the system, the process, the courts, it is the measurement of justice that determines the nature of our civilisation.”
Articles
What is the proper role for the courts in these kinds of cases?
The Migration Act is full of limitations and qualifications. Only errors of law made by the Refugee Review Tribunal are reviewable, for example. By definition errors of fact cannot not reviewed.This is a gross perversion. An error is an error and must be corrected.
That is what a court is for.
Too true, and an apt thought for our current predicament. It is the same as why the Australian people voted so strongly against the referendum to allow Prime Minister Menzies to outlaw the Communist Party. Because even those whose ideology we abhor have the right to believe what they believe. Thus what Howard and others are doing in denigrating Muslims and Islam in general is un-Australian. History proves that.
Well done Malcolm Fraser for once again reminding us of what is morally right.
Like the refugee ‘issue’- it’s not about Left or Right-but it IS about Wrong or Right.
Yes and no!
We are seeing our parliament draft and pass new laws which are oppressive or even worse deny the long held values of British Justice - particularly Habeus Corpus which we have had for almost 1,000 years.
How is it that (in such a relatively short time), I read this and worry that it is describing my feeling towards our Government - or rather the Dictator (and his sycophants) we are watching emerge. All the more betrayed for those of us Liberal who now see a Conversative Party rule ‘in our name’. Poor David Hicks, he had to “exist” for us to shout ENOUGH!
Every person on this Planet has a right to a life that is as free and unrestricted as it possibly can be. Above all, everyone has a right to be treated equally under the law. It is the responsibility of everyone to be watchful that our Legislators do our bidding and not transgress the framework within which they act.
We have as much a duty to defend the rights those we abhor as we have to defend the rights of those we cherish. It’s as simple as that.
Defending these rights does not weaken us or hinder us at all in the fight against terrorism. No. Instead, it strengthens us and it frustrates the terrorists.
It is now the case that Australians travelling overseas have to concern ourselves with whether our actions not only adhere to the laws of our own country and the country we’re visiting but that we do not infringe US laws, in case the powerful US decides to arrest us. This is bad enough (mind boggling in fact) but it’s not even the worst of it. We also have to concern themselves with not doing anything the US may dislike enough to make a retrospective law. This is not only unconscionable, it is farcical. How can we stand by and watch anyone be jailed, without trial, for breaking a law that existed nowhere? All Australian citizens (not just those we or our government ‘like’) have the right to our government’s protection and, if our government won’t perform this fundamental duty, it must be removed from office.
The powers-that-be would have us believe that terrorism is an existential threat, a danger of a new kind that threatens us all. They may mention that we can’t afford the luxury of all the legal “niceties” when we confront this threat. To do so would be to put lives at risk.
Whether this is true is arguable; it is not particularly relevant. Some of us - none better than the Hon. Mr. Fraser - appreciate that the rule of law so important that putting our lives at risk to uphold it is the least we can do. The fact that the risk is really so small puts the craven behaviour of the current government in a bad light indeed.
Democracy cannot exist without the rule of law. The treatment of David Hicks by the Howard government shows that it has no respect for democracy and is moving closer to an elective dictatorship. To call Mr Howard and his henchmen craven is the kindest thing one could do. It would be more accurate to say that they connive with the Americans to subvert the rule of law, and, therefore, democracy. They do not deserve to be in government.