Talk:Mohamed Haneef

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Remove 'Current Event' status?

I think the tag at the start of the article stating it is a "current event" should be removed as I don't believe it is current any more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biting mammal (talk • contribs) 02:13, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

It is still a "current event", read The Australian today 23 August 2007 refuting Kevin "cherry picker" Andrews' claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.49.196.163 (talk) 00:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: change to wording of the charge regarding reckless and intentional.

the exact charge has often been reported as "recklessly, but not intentionally" provided assistance (see e.g. http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/terror-suspect-doctor-given-bail/2007/07/14/1183833812030.html).

The exact charge that AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty has detailed is s 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). It explains that the giving of aid itself has to be intentional, which seems to contradict many of the newspaper reports. The "reckless" word appears only in relation to whether the accused is aware that the organisation he has given support/resources is a terrorist organisation.

[edit] 457 visa

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/skilled-workers/sbs/ There seems not to be a page for this at WP.I'd add the link if I knew how..Feroshki 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview released

The Australian.com.au released on line July 10 the interview with police. It was leaked by his attorney. This interview seems to be unavailable on line now. I am assuming it is not the documents related to the court's determination on visa cancelation. Is this locateable?Kyle Andrew Brown 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting development, reported in the SMH. John Dalton 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC) It's spreading across the media now (to the ABC). John Dalton 01:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC) The Australian John Dalton 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government trying to deport Haneef to save face

The latest news is that the government wants him deported ASAP to contain potential fallout. I would guess they are offering to drop the charges in exchange for him agreeing to drop his appeal against the visa cancellation although this isn't clear from the source. Or perhaps they're hoping he'd give up on the appeal rather then spend time in Villawood. I presume he can't actually be deported while his visa cancellation appeal is ongoing right? [1] Nil Einne 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes he can. He just can't come back. BrianFG 13:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Accusations

I am not sure the accusations are actually false. The issue is that they are thoroughly absurd in a truly Kakfa-esque way.

So, for example, it is true that he gave his SIM card to his second cousin. What is absurd is characterizing this act as recklessly rendering support to a terrorist organization.

124.168.33.136 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No one, not even Mohamed Haneef has AFAIK ever denied he gave the SIM card to relatives. However there have been many allegations that have either been proven or appear false including the claim it was found in the burning car, allegations he lived with the alleged perpetrators and a variety of other claims. Also, whatever the reasons the Australian police accused him of recklessly rendering support, it's still a false accusation even if some of the details are true and part of the problem is their tortured/insane reasoning. Think of this another way. If you're accused of murder and it turns out you did kill the person but it wasn't murder, the accusation of murder is false no matter how or why it was arrived at Nil Einne 06:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. For the accusation to be 'false' it must be proven to be so. The charges were dropped, withdrawn, rescinded - whatever term you prefer to enjoy. There was never the opportunity to prove them false as they never got to trial. Further, from another perspective, on the 2nd of July, the accusations were very real (in that they existed). You could say that the accusations were based upon false assumptions and false information but not that the accusations themselves were false. Laager 12:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the accusations were always false. You cannot claim an accusation which is false was EVER not false whatever assumptions or information was used to arrive at the accusations. If I accuse your of murder and you didn't murder anyone then that's a false accusation regardless of the reason I accused your of murder. For an accusation to be false, it means the person did not do what you accused them of. It doesn't mean an accusation did not exist. Clearly Mohamed Haneef was accused at one time of reckless providing support. However this accusation now for all intents and purposes appear to be false. The fact that it was ALWAYS false does not mean an accusation did not exist. Nil Einne 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think it needs to be flagged there, but I do know there are strong feelings about this amongst others. I'll step aside from this one 'cos I can see both sides of this argument. 124.168.33.136 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Feroshski's edit to change the wording to avoid the contentious argument that really doesn't advance the cause of a neutral presentations of the facts which, at the end of the day, is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. And I say this as one who thinks Haneef's tribulations are travesty of justice.

124.168.43.193 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Statements By Andrews on 28 July

He refused to comment on Haneef's fairness of treatment as he informed media he was simply following anti-terror legislation implemented by the current Liberal government.

I don't like Andrews any more than the next guy, but this seems to be putting words into his mouth. If the sentence is to remain, then I ask that you provide a citation that proves he said it.

58.106.6.113 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visa cancellation hearing

I heard that this lawyers had hoped he would stay until his hearing. How does his leaving affect the hearing? Nil Einne 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] upgrade to business class

the ABC Radio reported on the w/e that Immigration had paid for an upgrade to business class to keep Dr H away from media. But today's "AUstralian" says, it was a decision by the airline (Thai)to avoid a scrum in the economy section Feroshki 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amusing aside.

Totally irrelivant to this discussion page, but may be of some merit in illustrating popular view on the subject; today in a packed auditorium of 1,500+ students studying public relations / journalism at the University of Western Sydney they were asked whether anyone believes he was involved in terrorism, not a hand went up. Whether they believe he was victimised. Every hand was raised. Get his visa back. Every hand. Get an apology. Every hand.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this latest alleged 'web chat' thing pans out. I wonder if it's as solid as the names of known terrorists scrawled into his diary by the federal police? News Limited have taken the liberty to 'reconstruct' what the conversation MAY have gone like. And the only sus part about it is the opening line of "They do not know anything about you. When are you leaving the country?" .. I mean seriously, what the .. ? Jachin 08:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You raise an important point which should be in the article. The media management, or spin, of the case by the government and police. The article does not mention the false claim that Haneef was photographing Gold Coast buildings, collecting intelligence for their later bombing. The AFP later ridiculed the interpretation that this was the purpose of the photos, and yet the photos and that interpretation could have only have been provided by officers of the AFP. The SIM card evidence was mis-described to the media, making it appear stronger than it was. The excerpts from the diary were misleading. The excerpts from Haneef's interrogation were misleading. The excerpts from the chat logs were misleading. In short, there was a lot of old-fashioned "verballing" by the police both to the magistrate and to the media. 150.101.246.227 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the Gold Coast plot mentioned at the bottom of the 'Other allegations' section? I guess it could be expanded.--Lester 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the introduction

"Dr Haneef's ensuing detention (the longest without trial in recent Australian history) "

shouldn't that read the longest without charge ? I'm sure just about every case takes more than a few weeks to go to trial! Bramley 12:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrews reveals some details on visa cancellation

Kevin Andrews revealed some of the information about his decision to cancel Haneef's visa:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/andrews-reveals-haneef-details/2007/07/31/1185647893695.html

There is a follow up story from Haneef's lawyer:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22167261-1702,00.html

It is interesting to note that Andrews does not say that he made his decision based on the information released today – just that the information now known supports his decision. Seems a bit fishy ... --James 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how long?

this article states that dr mhamed haneef was arrested on july 2 and released on july 27. why then does it also state that haneef was detained for 12 days. doesnt the period between july 2 ans 27 add up to 25 days? how long was he detained??????? 203.221.68.174 22:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure really. I think he was detained for 12 days, then he was granted bail but Kevin Andrews cancelled his visa so he was detained further as an illegal immigrant. Anyone know how many days Dr. Haneef spent in detention altogether?

He was detained for 12 days WITHOUT CHARGE, the charges were brought against him after this, and the rest of the period he was detained until 27th is considered "valid"..--124.171.83.231 23:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There should be a section called 'Political Fallout'

Just reading through this article, one thing missing is a section / title about Political Fallout. Apart from the obvious ramifications to the Government in opinion polls, there is also the stance of other parties. Some Labor left politicians have been heavily criticised for supporting Howard on this issue (Reference). I'd like to see how the stance was of the major parties, eg Liberal, Labor, Greens, Democrats. I think it would be an interesting and important section. 203.158.43.178 05:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word 'leak' pejorative

The use of the word 'leak' to describe the release of the AFP interview transcript is pejorative. The chairman of the Queensland Law Society commented "To describe this information as a leak is to completely misdescribe it." 'Leak' suggests the release was illegal, or unethical - it appears the release was neither, therefore I suggest the more neutral term 'release' be used instead. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/19/1982169.htm Just wanted to add my opinion as to how biased this WP article is. It seems nearly every entry is written in a style that supports Dr Haneef. It is really an insult to the neutrality of WP. People have an obligation to present the facts, and all the facts, not just selecting the ones that support their view. It does not matter which side you believe is correct, the point is to present an article with complete and correct facts in a neutral and unbiased manner.

Safe your opinion for yourself. Wiki is not a place to express your gibberish. Besides, this article is neutral enough. 203.49.196.163 00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.100.228.90 (talk) 04:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

The above is a very good example of why people should sign. Either the above is one person with at least two (split) personalities or it's 2 or more people arguing something but not signing so it's not clear who's saying what Nil Einne 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography or event?

It seems to be the trend lately that persons notable for a single event only be covered in an article on the event rather than a biography. Is such an approach appropriate here?--cj | talk 08:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

its a wikipedia trend, why not follow? is there any inherent advantage to renaming/rescoping this page in this case seeing as he does have notability in and of himself, otherwise every person with one major event would be denied an article because there weren't two, and why is two events special? removing this article because there is only one event seems like a silly pedantic thing to do, but I have learnt never to put it past wikipedia to develop something extra pedantic.

Of course, I realise that the impact of the event is currently spread across many articles, including the section on Kevin Andrews which was possibly trimmed rightly considering its current impact on his career (though if he loses his seat over it then extra length may be appropriate :-) ) I would in that respect support an article which conglomerated the important information together while leaving summaries on the articles relating to the major parties to the kerfuffle. Ansell 07:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detention visa? ...and linking to legislation

I've amended the words "residence detention visa" as there is no such visa. The correct term is Residence Determination under s197AB Migration Act. The person is still in detention (under s189 Migration Act) but is permitted to have their place of detention determined to be a particular place in the community. This is another power that can only be exercised by the Minister personally.

I'm not clear on how to link from wiki to external links. Should I link to the legislation? http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/6E4ED401C9760993CA257368007DE74A

Do I cite it as a reference? In no sense nonsense 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Evidence

More evidence has emerged regarding the Haneef case. Someone might want to add it to the article. John Dalton (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal	Mohamed Haneef is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.