How Australians Laws are Eroding Civil Liberties Based on the Case of Mohamed Haneef
Australian laws are severely eroding civil liberties and this is shown in the case of Mohamed haneef, and how his freedom and rights were breached due to the Anti – terrorism act (no 2) 2005 (cth), which gave the government the jurisdiction to arrest Mohamed Haneef without any charge or any beyond reasonable evidence. Mohamed Haneef was arrested and put in detention centre on 2nd of July 2007 for 12 days where he wasn’t allowed to see his pregnant wife which resulted in his wife having to birth without the support of her husband. He was arrested on suspicion of “terror – related” activity in relation to the Glasgow international airport attack.
There wasn’t any significant evidence and he wasn’t charged with any crime but due to the social and political context a post – September 11 climate characterised fear of further terrorist attacks against western democracies and the Anti terrorism act, the governmental had made the decision to put Mohamed Haneef in a detention centre. Mohammed was not a threat and this case could have been handled much better by finding solid evidence or proof of him having anything to do with the act of terrorism but since this case was not treated correctly Mohamed Haneef had to suffer for no apparent reason. Intention and acts are different matters, the intention for the Mohamed haneef case was to stop or avoid a terrorist attack however the way the case was acted upon was dreadfully and ended up created a huge backlash by the citizens which put on an example for the rest of the cases onwards regarding terrorism acts and to have a finalise decision and solid proof beyond reasonable doubt
Australia’s laws and rules have changed drastically in the past years in the matter of terrorism acts and overall jurisdiction.
Mohamed Haneef’s case caused great deal of controversy in Australia and even in India which made this case result in Australia to advance and go further into terrorism related cases and find solid evidence before arresting. The Mohamed Haneef’s case was quickly dropped due to the fact that the suspicion wasn’t sustainable. The intention of arresting Mohamed Haneef was to remove any threat of a future Terrorism based attack but the way that this case was issued wasn’t in a proper form or matter and the backlash was immensely greater then the intention of community safety.This case doesn’t balance of individual rights with the need for community safety due to the fact that Mohammed haneef’s rights were breached and exploited without any solid evidence which didn’t guarantee the communities safety nor serves any justice towards Mohammed haneef.
Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties and this is further shown in the Israel folou case. Israel folau’s rights of freedom of speech, expressing you religion were excluded. “Folau’s contract was terminated by Rugby Australia in May after a social media post about homosexuals” A tweet of him expressing his religious belief lost him his NRL contract. Balancing individual rights and community’s safety is a difficult and intense matter, In my opinion the way this case was issued was completely illogical and presented in more of a childish manner.
By law everyone is allowed to express and practice your religion and is allowed to have the right to freedom of speech but in this case Israel falou’s rights were taken away in an unjust form, His opinion had nothing to do with communities safety therefore he imposed no threat and he should’ve had the right to be allowed to express his views like anyone else in Australia without any consequences, but by terminating Israel folau’s contract it broaden the case even more. Israel Folau ending up with mixed audience in which some supported Israel folau and some criticised him for his tweet which created controversy between folou’s fans and the whole rugby league fans.
It is clearly shown how Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties as stated above in two of the cases of both Mohamed haneef and Israel falou. Both of the cases show Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties such as in the Mohamed haneef’s case where he was put in a detention centre due to some suspicion of him having terrorism activity which never had a solid reasoning behind it or evidence to prove him guilty for arresting him, and for Israel Falou’s case his rights to freedom and expressing his religion and beliefs had resulted in his contract being terminated. Both these cases demonstrate that the law balances the rights of the individual with the needs for community safety is very difficult to balance and process therefore sometimes some acts and decision may be controversial but all of it is done with a good intention of keeping the community safe within the individual rights.
Cite this Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below