Anwar Ibrahim -- Arrested

The allegations are clear but the charges are not, at least according to Anwar's lawyer. Sankara Nair, Anwar's lawyer witnessed the arrest , and has stated that the police did not indicate what Anwar (pictured) was being charged with. Anwar was arrested as he arrived at home and was immediately taken to Kuala Lumpur police headquarters.

The arrest sparked an SMS frenzy with all members of the Keadilan Party and the members of the opposition coalition receiving SMS messages to gather outside the police headquarters and rally for Anwar's release.

It is going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. The "victim" or the person making the claims here is Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a volunteer in Anwar's office. Saiful is 23 years old. It might be the cynic in me, but after the allegations were made several photos emerged showing Saiful posing all smiles at the Deputy Prime Ministers office. This in and of itself has no real significance except how does a 23-year-old with no real reason to be meeting with the Deputy PM get access to the DPM office? More to the point, why is a volunteer from Anwar's office meeting with the DPM?

For old conspiracy theorists like myself there is something to be made of all these coincidences.

Having been charged and convicted for sodomy before it seems that these would be the easiest allegations to be made. Yet, the previous charges were ultimately thrown out or overturned by Malaysia's highest court. This really is shaping up as a he said, he said show. Unless, young Saiful has some incriminating evidence then I am not sure where this goes. I am not an expert on Malaysian law so I cannot authoritatively say.

It must be noted that some Ministers have been suggesting that there is evidence and that Anwar will need to provide a reference DNA sample. I am not sure why he would need to do that. I would have thought that last time around the police would have required Anwar to submit DNA and his sample would be in the system. But if there is DNA evidence, I wonder whether it is of a similar kind that captivated US audiences during the Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky caper and the President's semen stain on the good ol' blue dress.

Sodomy charges if proven see the perpetrator liable for a term of imprisonment of up to 20 years.

The question though is, are these trumped up charges that are aimed at subverting the opposition movement for democratic change and restoring some of the authoritarian practices of the past?

I will be watching as this will be quite a story for sure.

Alleged Australian Sex Offender Arrested in Bali

Paul Francis Callahan fled Australia in 2003 headed for Bali after allegations surfaced that he had committed sex offences in Canberra.

Australian authorities learned of Callahan's whereabouts and placed a request with Indonesian Police to arrest him. The Indonesian Police granted the request and Callahan was arrested last Saturday in Kuta.

Callahan is currently in custody and awaiting an extradition hearing at the Denpasar District Court. By all accounts the hearing should be a mere formality.

Callahan on arrival in Bali has opened a surf gear business, married a local woman, and has a child with her. Strangely, this part of the tale sounds all too ordinary and is perhaps a case of evil living among us and we do not even know it!

Captain Kangaroo

This was the first network kids show in the USA.

I did not know this! But I wonder why the first network kids show in the US was called Captain Kangaroo when the kangaroo is native to Australia and is also part of the Coat of Arms of my country of birth.

Perhaps Australia was looking for a bit of world domination in the 1950s and 1960s!

Panama

I am led to believe that Panama is the only place in the world where you can watch the sun rise over the Pacific and set over the Atlantic.

I guess this is one of those things you do because you can!

Justice Michael Kirby -- Criminalizing HIV

Australian High Court Judge Michael Kirby has spoken about the growing pressure on States to criminalize the transmission of HIV. Justice Kirby while addressing a criminal law conference in Dublin was speaking about the rising rates of HIV infection in Australia and the pressure to see those that transmit the virus punished.

It is Justice Kirby's view that criminalizing the transmission is going to have a a negligible effect on transmission rates, if any effect at all. The idea of criminalizing the transmission of HIV is likely to be counter-productive as this would be best described as a punitive measure.

The money that the State is likely to have to throw at this to make the policy of criminalizing the transmission of HIV would be better spent on research and development that leads to a vaccine and eventually a cure.

The fact that HIV is no longer the immediate death sentence it once was because of significant advances in the effectiveness of antiretrovirals and other drugs has meant that people have become much less cautious in protecting themselves. Perhaps psychologically the idea of a chronic illness is more palatable and less scary than rapid progression to death from an AIDS related illness.

I know Justice Kirby and I once wanted to clerk for the man. Justice Kirby has lost friends to the disease. So, in that sense he has a personal perspective on this.

East Timor and Indonesian Responsibility

The Truth and Friendship Commission has spoken, actually produced a report, that states in unequivocal terms that Indonesia played a significant role in the violence that ensued in Timor Leste after the Direct Ballot of 1999. In fact the report says that Indonesia is responsible for the committing of gross human rights abuses including murder and torture.

This is strange because not one high ranking person who was charged with a crime relating to this in Indonesia was convicted or had their conviction affirmed on appeal. All defendants successfully negotiated the Indonesian Human Rights Court system. I wonder why some might think this whole process was nothing more than lip service and a whitewash from start to finish.

The next part of this story has that funny in a perverse way feel to it. The release of the report has sparked Indonesia into acknowledging responsibility for carrying out gross violations of human rights but not offering an apology. I am wondering why one would even except responsibility at all? Let's face it, no one has been convicted in an Indonesian court for any crimes that were alleged to have been committed in 1999. Or is this a case of trying to ward off an international tribunal by saying, "yes, we as a State committed some crimes but we are not sure who the perpetrators are".

The claim is going to be the people we thought were the perpetrators have since been found innocent by the open and transparent court system in operation in Indonesia and cannot be tried again for the crimes for which they have already been acquitted.

I believe that without justice it is impossible to move forward fully. Indonesia seems to think that the release of the report ends this tragic saga, it should not! The report is not justice for the victims or their families. This is a mere narrative of what the commission uncovered. If Indonesia refuses to prosecute perpetrators of these crimes then an International Tribunal must be set up to deal with those that have committed crimes.

There must be justice for all!

Dying In Jail

I wonder what it is like to have spent 56 years in prison? I wonder this from the outside and have no intention of ever wanting to find out from the inside. I wonder what it is like to have spent more than half of your 80 years of life behind bars?

Eric Thomas Turner (pictured), was a quadruple murder and the last inmate in a NSW prison that had been sentenced to death. The death sentence was later commuted to life in prison. He was released but murdered again. In this case 'was' is the operative word as Turner has died in prison as a result of complications from lung cancer.

Turner was an evil man who killed his first person at the young age of 20 in 1948. His first victim was his then 15-year-old girlfriend, Claire Sullivan. His second victim was Frank Sullivan, Claire's father. He strangled Claire and he axed the father. He was sentenced to death on 15 December 1948.

His sentence was commuted to life in prison. I am not sure why there is no truth in sentencing and when a person is sentenced to life in prison then this is exactly what it means; you die there! However, maybe after 22 years behind bars the State felt sorry for the fella or believed him rehabilitated because he was released in 1970.

Turner seems to have kept out of trouble for a while. But, perhaps it is true, "once a killer always a killer," because 3 years after his release Turner killed his mother-in-law, Harriet Field, by stabbing her 11 times. Turner's stepson, John Pilz, tried to intervene to save his grandmother and Turner killed him as well.

Not surprisingly the community was somewhat outraged that Turner was released in the first place. Nevertheless, he was convicted and again sentenced to life imprisonment. This sentence was then redetermined. The life sentence remained but a non-parole period of 20 years was set. Therefore, since 1993 Turner has been eligible to seek parole. However, it was not until his illness had become too much for him that he had sort to be released on parole.

He did seek release in 2007. The application for release was refused.

Turner was the longest serving prisoner in the NSW correctional system. However, the title of the longest continuous serving prisoner goes to the 84-year-old William "The Mutilator" McDonald. McDonald was sentenced in 1963 to life in prison for the murder of four homeless men.

As I said, I wonder what it must be like to spend so much time behind bars?

Annoyance Provisions -- Tossed

Just a very brief update.

The Federal Court has tossed the annoyance provisions as they were written in Clause 7.1 of the legislation. The legal reasoning was that the provision was an infringement on free speech as there was no intelligible boundary as to what an annoyance is. The secondary reasoning was that current provisions in other laws and regulations are more than sufficient to deal with offensive behaviour.

Let's go annoy some pilgrims! The photo is of the two individuals that brought the action to the Federal Court, Amber Pike and Rachel Evans.

New Yorker Magazine -- The Obama Cover

I wonder if there is an agenda at play here or is it really as The New Yorker Magazine claims just a bit of satire? Looking at the picture for yourselves it is clear that both Obama and his wife are depicted as terrorists and if you look closely you can see the US flag burning in the fireplace and a happy snappy of Osama bin Laden hangs on the wall. The Obama campaign has labeled the cover offensive. And, I am not surprised.

The cover may well be satire but it plays into the misinformation that has swirled around the Obama campaign for a long time now. The flag in the fire place could represent Obama's reluctance to wear a lapel pin for a long while. He has now taken to wearing one again in an attempt to ward of any critics questioning his patriotism.

The rumor mill has been running for a long while that Obama's middle name of Hussein means he must be a Muslim. This is also untrue and I wonder why people believe it considering there was such broad coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair and Obama's church going habits.

Perhaps the Osama bin Laden photograph on the wall is in reference to the idea that Obama will meet with tyrants, despots, and dictators as a means to further US diplomacy.

The Obama campaign's beef seems to be that it depicts Obama and his wife as being racist, sexist, anti-religion, anti-patriotic, and sympathetic to terrorism. Yet, these are just some of the claims that right-wing critics have already made of the Obama's. So, is it that much of a stretch to understand the New Yorkers explanation of the cover which was, "Please note that it is satire -- we are poking fun at the scare tactics and misinformation that some have employed to derail Obama's campaign"?

The cover is so outrageous that it cannot be anything but satire and any one that believes that the caricature is an accurate depiction of either the candidate or his wife needs their head read. Is the cover offensive? I do not think so. Is it tasteless? Perhaps. Is it ridiculous? Most definitely! And as I said the idea that any one is going to base their vote on what is contained in this caricature is equally silly.