Tags:
Journalism of Courage
With the Australian police dropping all charges against Mohammed Haneef, it is time to take a more dispassionate view of assessing suspects in preventive policing. Dr Haneef will hopefully soon walk free, and his case will be a valuable case study in determining how to tackle a very global issue: striking a balance between respect for individual liberty and responsibility to prevent any possible disturbance for the larger common good. In the Indian doctor8217;s case, the process has clearly worked and a man implicated only by innocent association has had his case go through a stringent process of legal appraisal before being cleared. This is an important point. Chances are that Haneef will not be the last person anywhere in the world to be arrested for 8220;reckless8221; , and unknowing, support to dubious groups. In the way in which his case has been processed, however, there are lessons in how civil society must and must not intervene.
Start with the don8217;ts. In hindsight, those who decided, including in this country, to see and portray Hanif8217;s detention through a racist/immigrant prism only ended up distorting the issue. Till a system reveals itself to be acting upon prejudice and bias, those in support of the detained do more good by basing their arguments on principles of law. The Indian government summoning the Australian high commissioner was therefore unfortunate, unnecessary and immature. And, as contrast, special note must be made of Haneef8217;s wife8217;s statement a few days ago that she8217;d like him to walk free after being lawfully exonerated. That8217;s important. Haneef is free not because he is brown, Muslim, an immigrant, Indian. He is free because it was deemed that the charges against him would not hold in a court of law.
