I KNEW leaving some role for the courts, even a tightly-prescribed and extremely limited one, was going to be a problem.
How are we going to take control of the situation back away from the legal system and back into the hands of the executive? Sure, the guy's been sacked as a result of our flimsy charge, but we're not satisfied. He's obviously extremely dangerous, so we won't let him leave the country to see his newborn baby - he's so dangerous, with those relatives, that we want him as close to us as possible - but we don't want him hanging around the streets either.
It's just so infuriating. How dare a court independently let him out after we made it quite clear we wanted to look Tough On Terror by locking the muslim bloke up?
I know! Let's capriciously cancel the guy's visa! Then we can hold him in immigration detention instead!
Ha ha ha. Take that, courts! Take that, rule of law!
PS Explains Kevni* Andrews:
"I have a responsibility and a duty as minister under the act to turn my mind to the question of whether Dr Haneef passes the character test," he said.
"In turning my mind to the information and advice provided to me by the Australian Federal Police, I have come to the conclusion I reasonably suspect that Dr Haneef has or has had an association with persons involved in criminal conduct."
Yes, having such relatives is a damning indictment on Haneef's "character". I mean that's almost as bad as if he'd actually done something vaguely criminal himself! It's like being gay - people CHOOSE to be gay, and people CHOOSE to be related to terrorist suspects. It's entirely his own fault. It's not as if you're "born" related to your family, after all.
*Seriously, what's with all the "Kevni" stuff on the righty blogs? Weird.
