have their names removed from deeds and rental agreements;
and should be jailed immediately;
convicted on hearsay evidence.

This is a blatant and embarrassing position against civil and human rights.
Sadly, many would say Mr Hulls is just picking his political fights very well: He only wants to make explicit in the law what is already complicit in the legal and social system.
And surrendering his thoughts to radicals, who like all radicals seek to make everyone think like they do.

One of the saddest facts I have had to accept about Australia is that neither the citizenry nor the politicians have any commitment to equality under the law.
I have to ask while laughing out loud if these frustrating expressions of Australia’s immature culture are what John Howard means by “aspirational nationalism”… (which still sounds to me like he wants to run the nation out of breath.)

Australia has lived with the benefits of freedom, with the benefits of civil and human rights, for so long yet seems to have never understood any of the responsibilities of those freedoms – neither individually nor institutionally.

With such confusion at the state leadership level, it isn’t surprising that there is little understanding of the dangers of the wording in the charges against Haneef (”terrorist organization”).
These anti terrorism laws have been attacked successfully in the UK and US. In both countries, the laws have been severely limited or dispelled on civil and human rights grounds.
There is no long standing history of the struggle for such rights in Australia; nor is there any protections for such rights under a national constitution.
More than that, I have to argue most Australians have no faith in the courts or the law – at least to some degree as a result.

Paul