![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rule of law
Aug. 29th, 2006 03:17 pmI meant to post on The Australian's digusting articles when Jack Thomas was freed on appeal, but haven't had the time. Fortunately, Media Watch covered it very well here
The most disgusting part (to my eyes, although it's all pretty fucking bad) was the response from the Oz's Legal Affairs Editor:
Hm. Let's see. He was threatened with torture, denied a lawyer, and the appeals court (rightly) ruled the resulting confession invalid. The total fuckstick at the Oz continued with his theme on the front page of the Oz today (no link, no time to go hunting for it, I saw it on a paper copy at the cafe while eating lunch), praising the new control order that was instituted yesterday, and bemoaning that it wasn't enough.
No doubt this same supposed legal expert is perfectly fine with "alleged terrorist" David Hicks being locked up for 5 years without charge. Rule of law be damned, basic human rights be damned. Because it's alleged that Hicks (and Thomas) are Bad People, they should be locked up. And no, I'm not saying either Hicks or Thomas are completely innocent - but until they're found guilty IN A COURT OF LAW, they are PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. Until then, I don't think anyone can run around throwing guilt.
And this is their Legal Affairs editor that can't seem to understand this. Jesus fuck.
Just goes to show that Murdoch press is Murdoch press, regardless of whether it's in tabloid or broadsheet form.
(And yes, at least one of the writers highlighted by MW, the utterly vile Gerard Henderson, writes for Fairfax. Fortunately, when the Age got a new editor, he took the praiseworthy step of dropping Henderson's columns.)
The most disgusting part (to my eyes, although it's all pretty fucking bad) was the response from the Oz's Legal Affairs Editor:
"I stand by every word of the commentary that was published under my byline in The Australian. If you disagree with my opinion, and believe a friend of Al Qaida deserves to be free, I look forward to hearing your explanation."
Hm. Let's see. He was threatened with torture, denied a lawyer, and the appeals court (rightly) ruled the resulting confession invalid. The total fuckstick at the Oz continued with his theme on the front page of the Oz today (no link, no time to go hunting for it, I saw it on a paper copy at the cafe while eating lunch), praising the new control order that was instituted yesterday, and bemoaning that it wasn't enough.
No doubt this same supposed legal expert is perfectly fine with "alleged terrorist" David Hicks being locked up for 5 years without charge. Rule of law be damned, basic human rights be damned. Because it's alleged that Hicks (and Thomas) are Bad People, they should be locked up. And no, I'm not saying either Hicks or Thomas are completely innocent - but until they're found guilty IN A COURT OF LAW, they are PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. Until then, I don't think anyone can run around throwing guilt.
And this is their Legal Affairs editor that can't seem to understand this. Jesus fuck.
Just goes to show that Murdoch press is Murdoch press, regardless of whether it's in tabloid or broadsheet form.
(And yes, at least one of the writers highlighted by MW, the utterly vile Gerard Henderson, writes for Fairfax. Fortunately, when the Age got a new editor, he took the praiseworthy step of dropping Henderson's columns.)
