The inversion of justice
Usually we lock people up because there is evidence that they are guilty. Under terrorism laws this principle has been inverted.
Dr Mohamed Haneef has now been in detention for some 10 days. He has not been charged. Worse still for much of that time, his lawyers have not been told what exactly the accusations against him are. The right of the accused to know the case put against him is one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice. It is difficult to see how Haneef's lawyers can put a coherent case to the magistrate who keeps extending his detention, if they don't even know what the evidence against their client is (or if there is any, for that matter).
The anti-terrorism laws have created a situation where the federal police are allowed to keep on detaining someone precisely because they don't have enough evidence to charge him (not even prove the case against him, just charge him). One can only wonder at the incongruity of the system where it the very lack of evidence of guilt becomes the justification for continued detention.
Terrorism is a serious concern, but so are the basic civil rights and liberties. Serial killers or serial rapists cannot be treated in the way that Haneef has been, they cannot be detained without charge for almost two weeks and without being given a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Of course, in the present climate, attempted acts of terrorism create far more public fear than serial murders or similar crimes. One could easily think that it is a fair bargain to (at least apparently) gain some safety by turning a blind eye on civil rights violations. But danger comes in different forms and in our eagerness to avoid one danger we ignore another. Arbitrary and protracted detention, coercive interrogation, wrongful imprisonment or torture are all dangers that cannot be ignored simply because, for the moment, we are more scared of something else.
Those who think that they have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide should remember the paradox of anti-terrorism laws - at the moment Haneef is being detained because there is not enough evidence against him to even charge him. And if such a paradox is acceptable in one set of laws, how long will it be before it is implemented elsewhere?
RSS
