Dr Haneef - Terrorist or Dupe? - OzChess

**Arrogant-One** · 07-23-2007, 10:23 PM

So Dr Haneef is in detention and the government is trying to deport him back to India. That's just great.

If the government succeeds, and presuming the government's allegations that he is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer are true, then deporting him would actually be contrary to the government's self proclaimed goal of eliminating terrorism in the world. It would merely relocate an alleged terrorist to India where, presumably, he could continue his terrorist activities against Australian interests in that country unhampered.

If the government's allegations against this man are incorrect, then an injustice has surely been done to him. The old adage of not using a hammer to swat a fly comes to mind.

Alarmingly, the most unsavoury aspect to this whole debacle is that the bigger issue of Indian trained doctors in Queensland hospitals has been largley ignored by the media. Obviously the state government hasn't learned a thing from the tragic events Dr Patel unleashed on Bundaberg patients.

The basic lesson that should have been learned is that doctors trained in the 3rd world just don't belong anywhere near a hospital in this country, let alone practising medicine here.

Today in the CourierMail it was revealed that about 30% of doctors in Queensland hospitals are internationally trained.

This is a very deceptive thing to say. While I have absolutely no problem with doctors trained in developed nations practising medicine in Australia, the problems begin when doctors trained in places like Fiji, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iran, etc. start working here.

Instead of saying 30% of doctors working in Queensland hospitals are internationally trained, they should perhaps say 25% of doctors working in Queensland hospitals are trained in third world countries (presuming that's the figure) and 5% are trained in the developed world.

Of that 5% (again only speculating that that is the correct statistic) most would likely come from the UK and New Zealand. These doctors on the whole meet the standard expected of a competently trained medical doctor. I am not prepared to make that statement in relation to the other 25%.

Spiny Norman · 07-24-2007, 08:32 AM

There's an old saying: You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your relatives.

I'll bet Dr Haneef is pondering that one. I suspect he's caught up in someone else's war, but since everything is being kept secret, we may never know.

**Zeitgeist** · 07-24-2007, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

There's an old saying: You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your relatives.

You can choose who you vote for too.

**Iconoclast** · 07-24-2007, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

There's an old saying: You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your relatives.

Although, you can choose with whom you make relatives.

**Iconoclast** · 07-24-2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

So Dr Haneef is in detention and the government is trying to deport him back to India. That's just great.

The problem I have with the whole affair is not the fools in the AFP. Inspector plod will always have the odd stuff-up.

My problem is with the government that, revoked a visa exactly because they wanted the person incarserated.

The judicary released him (on bail) because the case was so so flimsey (and has now been seen to be non-existant.) The government then used executive power to lock up the person for years pending deportation. They revoked his visa on the same evidence that the court was given for his arrest - ie none of any worth. OK OK. This too may be a mear mistake of judgement. HOWEVER, the fact that a government can arbitarily lock up a person is an attack on the rule of law.

The rule of law has as part of its core, a requirement that all persons must act lawfully and respect the law, as it is administered by the judicary. That includes ministers who should respect the findings of a court. When a minister acts to incarerate a person who has already been freed (on bail) by the judicary, he is in contempt of the court. Then there is no rule of law. The citizens have no protection, in the form of a court ruling, from unconstrained government action.

A very grave state of affairs.

The basic lesson that should have been learned is that doctors trained in the 3rd world just don't belong anywhere near a hospital in this country, let alone practising medicine here.

Hmmm. I'm not sure about that arguement. I would however agree that medicos from the third world should not be working here for a completely different reason.

Third world nations need their doctors at home. It is ethically wrong for a first world country to "attract and employ" those dactors away from where they are most needed. We should train our own! For us to spunge expensive to train doctors, from a country that has barely enough money to run its hospitals, is evil.

**Arrogant-One** · 07-25-2007, 05:25 PM