After 9/11, the ‘north’ states reinforced each other’s perspectives on counter-terrorism. America’s Patriot Act, 2001, violates due process. English judges struck down the indefinite detention provisions of UK’s anti-terrorist laws of 2001-05. Australia joined the anti-terrorism ‘western’ club of nations by way of imitative support. No ‘terrorist’ attacks have taken place in Australia since 2001. The Bali bombings of 2002 and 2005 in which Australians died, and the attack on its embassy in Jakarta in 2004 deepened Australia’s apprehensions. Blind in its support of anti-terrorism, Australia is not averse to neglecting to protect its citizen, David Hicks, who is being tried by a military commission in Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps, because David Hicks is a Muslim?

Australia’s terrorism laws define terrorism widely to include actions or threats which advance an ideological cause to coerce, threaten or intimidate Australia, its public, or a foreign country. The offences against members of a terrorist organisation can go upto 25 years and those associating with such organisations upto three years. Preventive detention exists upto 14 days and control orders upto one year. Interrogations of upto 24 hours can stretch for 14 days — if staggered. This kind of law is catch-all. It targets terrorists, anti-terrorists, suspected terrorists and imagined terrorists.

Does Dr Haneef — an ‘imagined’ terrorist who is also a Muslim — stand a chance against Australia’s anti-terrorist influenza? Haneef is guilty by association many times over. He is a Muslim, a cousin of the Glasgow ‘terrorists’, a migrant doctor to England and Australia and suspected on all counts.

Conspiracy, not friendship, is a crime. The evidence against him? That on leaving the UK, he gave his SIM card to a friend. Is that a crime? And, if the friend commits a crime, with a cell phone in his pocket, does that make the owner of the SIM card a criminal? A protest placard in Sydney incredulously asks: if recklessness with a SIM card is an offence, arrest Shane Warne! Haneef was arrested and detained for days without being charged. Amnesty International and civil libertarians the world over are aghast. He has now been charged with recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation.

An Australian senior counsel feels that the concentrated publicity on Haneef is going to affect his trial. Some Indian papers have suggested that he was a member of SIMI — the Islamic students organisation banned in India. Haneef was arrested on July 2, 2007 and released on bail on July 16, 2007 because a magistrate was not convinced of the strength of the case against him. But his freedom was short lived. Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled Haneef’s visa because he was reasonably suspected of terrorism on the basis of information which now appears to be false, though the magistrate had released him. If Haneef exonerates himself, he may be deported by a subversive procedure of disguised extradition. That may be what Australia wants now — to avoid controversy at home.

For a change, the Indian government has protested, asking for the justice the Australian government had promised. Diplomacy can sometimes be a farce. But India may not cooperate with the ‘friendly exchange of information’. Rightly so. India should not allow ‘fishing expeditions’ against her own people on flimsy grounds.

McCarthyism of the early fifties in America had its counterpart in the Australia of those days. In the fifties, the communists were victimised. Today, Muslims may be victimised by association just as the communists were earlier. America’s fatal mistake was to convert its wars of predation into anti-religious wars against Muslims. America’s posture makes all this sound like the last crusade. Such crusades have never won. But people caught in the crossfire of such communal racism get traumatised. Haneef is caught in the crossfire. So, indeed, are Muslims all over the world. Prime Minister Howard’s Australia needs issues for its elections. Targeting and framing Muslims appears to be one of them.

The writer is a senior advocate