* The Western news media, so it was revealed in a recent survey, is totally infiltrated by by a lunatic fringe of far left, agenda driven journo’s and talk-show hosts.
In most countries in Europe the percentage is over 90%. In Australia it is no different: Australians are constantly disabused by clueless socialist agit-props on how the world should be, not how it is.
Dr. Haneef became a darling of the far left media circus virtually over night, just like Hicks (aka Muhammad Dawoud) and Mamduh Habib before him.
Taking the side of Dr. Haneef, a rather obvious terrorist sympathizer affiliated with the failed Glasgow bombers, Mike Carlton has a go at one of the few remaining conservative radio jock’s and has a meltdown:
Confused broadcaster Mike Carlton, on Sydney radio 2UE yesterday, loses his cool with a leading legal expert
PETER Faris: The question (in the context of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews’s decision to revoke Mohamed Haneef’s visa) is this: is there an association? And there’s a number of points (in commonwealth solicitor-general David Bennett’s opinion) which go to indicate there is an association. Being related is one of them.
Carlton: But I have a distant cousin who was done for drugs. But it doesn’t mean I’m a drug dealer. You’re drawing a very thin bow here to the point of snapping.
Faris: Let me say it one more time. The purpose of this exercise is to answer the question: Was there an association between Haneef and these bombers, or alleged bombers in the UK? That’s the question.
Carlton: Well, the answer is no. There happened to be a family connection, but it’s not as if they were partying together.
Faris: You say a family connection is not an association?
Carlton: Well, it doesn’t matter …
Faris: That would be part of the basis for revoking a visa. So if another cousin of the bombers in the UK wanted to come to Australia, one of the things that could be considered to establish an association is their family relationship. That’s one of the things.
Carlton: So there is no natural justice here at all. The minister can, with a stroke of a pen, and no answers back, say, “No, you’re not coming in. Or if you’re here, get out.” Right?
Faris: Well, it’s just not right. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Carlton: And nor do you, frankly. You’re a pompous arsehole sometimes, aren’t you? I mean, you really are.
Faris: Well, I think that’s offensive.
Carlton: It is. Don’t accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about.
Faris: No, you’re saying there’s no natural justice, which is a legal concept.
Carlton: There is no natural justice in this business.
Faris: I don’t think it’s really a very good thing to do to ring up people at seven o’clock in the morning and abuse them. You just admitted you’re being offensive.
Carlton: You started it by accusing me of not knowing what I’m talking about.
Faris: That’s not offensive. That’s a fact. But to call me a pompous arsehole on the air, I think, is extremely offensive.
Carlton: All right. I apologise for that remark, but you have a way of goading people with this attitude that you take that somehow you are vastly superior.
Faris: I don’t accept any apology from you, but I’ll try to explain it to you again. It was a question of proving association. Bennett has listed a number of points: one, two, three, four, five, six points of association. In Bennett’s view, that is sufficient for the minister to decide or to have a suspicion of association. That satisfies the law.
Carlton: That’s the point, isn’t it? The minister can decide with a stroke of a pen.
Faris: But that’s the law. The minister has followed the law.
Carlton: I know. We agree entirely on that.
Faris: Well, it’s not a fiasco, then, if the minister follows the law. For you, it may be wrong. You may not like the law.
Carlton: But there is no justice in that for DrHaneef, is there?
Faris: Well, that’s the law … The question is, has the minister followed the law?
Carlton: All right. I apologise again for doing my block at you, but you are a very provocative person.
Faris: Well, I’m just standing my ground.
Downunder the nutroots and the far left media manipulators are all up in arms over the Haneef case. You see, nothing ‘really’ happened, so Haneef is ‘innocent and his rights have been violated’- .
In the twisted logic of the left, nothing can be proven until after the fact, but then they blame the government for failing in its duty to protect us from Islamic terror.
If that fails, they blame the Jooozzz…