Still on the subject of Dr Mohammed Haneef, the full transcript of Haneef’s second interview with the Australian Federal is on the Crikey website. All 300 pages. Happy reading.
From the “It must be true” department…
Crikey has brought to my attention a media statement by the Australian Federal Police regarding the Mohammed Haneef case. In part it reads:
AFP Professional Standards has investigated suspected leaks to the media and is satisfied that there has been no unlawful disclosure of information by AFP members. The matters identified as possible inappropriate conduct by officials of other agencies will be referred to the appropriate authorities.
The AFP has acted appropriately throughout the investigation.
Well that’s good then. Some “other agencies” are to blame.
However the statement also says:
The continuing attempts by Dr Haneef’s defence team to use the media to run their case is both unprofessional and inappropriate and the AFP has raised this aspect with the Queensland Legal Services Commission.
Uhuh. And how about an equivalent sentence complaining about the government’s attempts to use the media to run their case? Yes, Ruddock and Andrews, I’m looking at you. Is your behaviour not also “both unprofessional and inappropriate”? No, no equivalent set of words? Oh.
I was under the impression that in Western democracies the police (as well as the “other agencies”) were there to independently uphold the rule of law, not act as the minions of the government of the day. Silly me.
Subtle Thai referendum poster
I like plain, straightforward communication. I therefore love this poster for the “no” case in Thailand’s recent constitutional referendum — the first referendum ever held in Thailand. Click on the image for a close-up.
Do you get the feeling they’d rather I voted “No”?
The referendum itself was on whether to adopt a new constitution, and the result seems to be that it’s a green light. Obviously the subtle poster didn’t work.
Thanks to One Plus One Equals Three for the pointer.
What is my degrading media designation?
Author John Birmingham writes (well, of course he writes, he’s an author):
I recently saw myself described as an ‘overrated misanthropic pot monster.’ I liked that so much I’m thinking of getting a tee shirt printed. It made me think of [writing a column] on the topic of media tags, you know — adjective adjective noun. But I couldn’t get four hundred words out of it. So I thought I’d throw it out here. Invent your own degrading media tag.
I like the challenge. I haven’t thought up one for him. But I’m wondering… What would be a good “degrading media designation” for me? And, for that matter, for the Prime Minister?
(On the latter, “lying rodent” doesn’t count. It has to have two adjectives. Even though a Google search on “lying rodent” gives you… well, look for yourself.)
Taxing the poor, for years
The media’s full of the Howard government’s magic $3.7 billion “extra surplus” today. It’s hard to know how to start making sense of it all. But here’s one thought which struck me: the tax-free threshold for personal income tax.
Democrat Senator Andrew Murray says in Crikey today that the amount you can earn before being taxed has stayed at the same figure of $6000 since the year 2000.
If it had been indexed since 2000, it would now be well over $7000. Had the 1980 personal threshold of $4,041 kept pace with earnings, the tax-free threshold would now be well over $15,000.
Senator Murray also points out that the minimum income required for basic subsistence is around $13,000. That is, if you earn less than that, you simply don’t have enough money to cover the basic living expenses of accommodation, food, clothing, education, medical care, transport and so on. Sure, you might be able to fake it for a while, but eventually something will give.
Choosing to support slavery
This quote from Saturday’s Daily Telegraph (not online) really hit me:
They [toys being sold at Christmas in a superstore] are probably made under awful conditions, but what do you do? Accept it… or leave the kids with nothing?
Huh? Read the full article and think again, people. Is giving cheap trinkets to your children so important that you’ll choose to treat other human beings so appallingly?
I can forgive someone for doing this out of ignorance — after all, ignorance can be cured with knowledge. But to know that this is happening and still choose the trinkets! That’s disgusting. I think I’d prefer to walk away from your Omelas.
On the other hand, the very next day it was raining and I bought a $3.50 Chinese umbrella to stay dry. Am I any better?