It’s been more than a year since Sheikh Mansour Leghaei was forced to depart Austarlia as an alleged security risk, having never been told what it was that he was supposed to have done wrong! Mansour lives quietly with his family but his friends in Australia have by no means given up on his return.

Complaints over Mansour’s treatment by the Australian government were made to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) early in  2010, but we still await a final ruling.  The Austarlian government did eventually make a response to questions posed by the UNHRC. Sheikh Mansour’s team in Australia subsequently responded to the Australian government’s response. The case is before the UNHRC and we await a final ruling with a great degree of confidence.

In the meantime questions continue to be raised about the role of ASIO in Australia. They seem to be accountable to no one – pursuing people for reasons that often prove to be completely erroneous, and making assessments of people that can destroy people’s lives but which they never have to prove.

The following 7.30 Report segement was put together by Greg Miskelly:

The following article was written by Ben Saul,  Associate Professor of International Law at Sytdney University.  It first appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, Monday June 7th.

In Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial, an ordinary man finds himself trapped inside the byzantine processes of a shadow justice system. When he asks what he has done wrong, the bureaucrats reply, “It’s not our job to tell you that.”

When he goes to court, he and his lawyers are not allowed to see any of the evidence against him.

His faceless accusers always remain unknown to him. Inevitably, in a system such as this, he is found guilty. All around him, life continues as normal, as if the fair trial of one man is of no concern to the world.

Kafka’s story is a terrifying glimpse into a world which, on the surface, claims to be ruled by law, but in reality is one where the modern bureaucratic state exercises total control over the individual. The individual’s right to be treated decently is extinguished for an unknown greater good. Kafka was writing about rising authoritarianism in early 20th-century Europe, but he could well have been describing Australia’s migration and security laws.

Mansour Leghaei is a long-term resident of Australia soon to be deported to Iran on national security grounds. All he has been told by the intelligence agency ASIO is he is a risk to national security. He has been shown no evidence by ASIO or in any of the court proceedings he brought to challenge ASIO’s assertion.

Absurdly, he has received letters from the authorities asking him to answer the allegations against him, when he has no idea what they are. A Federal Court judge observed his right to procedural fairness had been reduced to ”nothingness”.

Because Australia has no bill of rights, in Leghaei’s case, Australian law cares nothing for the right to a fair hearing of foreigners in security cases. This places Australia in direct breach of its international law obligations under the human rights treaties which it agreed to. Human rights law recognises the importance of a country’s security concerns, but requires minimum guarantees of fairness for an affected person.

The Australian approach is at odds with much of the liberal democratic world. In Britain and continental Europe, which face greater security threats than Australia, human rights law requires a person to be told the substance of the allegations. Sources and informants and other sensitive information can be protected, but an affected person must always receive a summary of the reasons and evidence. That delicate balancing of interests is a sign of living in a civilised society bound by the rule of law.

The denial of a fair hearing is foreign to our ancient common law tradition. The common law depends on an adversarial process, in which a person can challenge the evidence against them. Only be exposing allegations to the harsh light of day can their truth be tested.

Allegations may be false, informants may bear grudges, conduct may have innocent explanations, and intelligence may be misinterpreted. Few can forget that Iraq was invaded in 2003 based on botched intelligence; no reasonable Australian can have blind faith in ASIO.

Where a person is unable to see or test the evidence, it cannot possibly be determined whether the person is actually a risk to national security or not. Deporting Leghaei in such circumstances would be arbitrary, capricious, and internationally unlawful.

It would also deprive Australia of a moderate religious leader and voice of tolerance, as well as depriving his children, who are Australian citizens, of their father. As a Federal Court judge said: “His deportation may well cause hardship to utterly blameless Australian citizens and permanent residents”.

For that reason, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has ordered Australia not to deport him until the UN has ruled on his complaint against Australia.

The UN’s temporary order aims to prevent the ”irreparable harm” to the Leghaei’s family life which will result if he is torn apart from his wife and children – including his 14-year-old daughter, who will lose her father – by deportation. The UN’s order is binding under international law, necessary to ensure the procedural integrity of the complaints system.

While the Rudd government talks the talk of human rights and global governance, signing up to every treaty under the sun, it is in individual cases the rubber hits the road.

By announcing that it will deport Leghaei in defiance of the UN’s order, the government has revealed its true colours and its contempt for international law.

Its commitment to the UN system is flaky and selective. Kafka Kevin’s hypocrisy is remarkable, particularly when a tedious and splenetic Opposition turns up the heat on immigration.

Leghaei’s request of the government is not radical: tell him what he has supposedly done, let him explain it, and only then deport him if the allegations are true.

That is what a fair and civilised society ruled by law would do.

No Australian can have confidence in our security where it is based on faceless accusers and secret evidence – and where ordinary people are judged in the shadow of the law.

Assoc. Professor Ben Saul

The following is a letter from Father John Pearce – Parish Priest at St Brigid’s, Marrickville (the largest church in our region) to Australian MP’s

Together with two local Anglican Priests and some members of our three Parishes, on Thursday 5th June I travelled by bus convoy to Canberra for a Rally in support of Sheikh Mansour Leghaei.

Mansour is an Imam neighbour of mine and President of our Marrickville Inter-Faith Round Table.  He will be deported in 3 weeks unless our Federal Government backs down. He has been given a negative assessment by ASIO after 16 years of peaceful work in the community. He is the only fluent English speaking Imam in Sydney. He preaches in English, thus has a large young multicultural Islamic Community. Our convoy of 14 buses from Sydney and Melbourne had many young people as our hosts and leaders. If our Christian Churches had such numbers of young people, we would be overflowing with good Disciples.

After standing in Solidarity with yesterday outside Parliament, I found a lot of the young people talk in gratitude on the bus back, and of how much he has influenced their lives and the lives of others. It was most inspiring. I now look forward to inviting some of them here for a dinner conversation with some of our young people for the St Brigid’s Parish 2nd Annual Ifta Dinner I will host in August.

Despite approaches to the PM’s office, neither he nor any of his ministers were available to join us on the lawns opposite Parliament. Neither did the Opposition. The local Greens Candidate for Grayndler at least travelled with us and participated. Also, the AFP informed us that neither the Sheikh nor rally participants could enter the Parliamentary Building to even hand his letter of appeal to the Front Desk. The young people did such a great job with crowd movement, the AFP had little to do.

As you may know, one of my concerns is this comes 90 years after a Passionist Priest from my Parish of Marrickville was deported for opposing conscription during WWI, as did many of our Bishops and citizens. He was German born, British educated, finished school at Parramatta, yet deemed a threat to the State. While his father became a British subject, he forgot to put his son and wife on the papers. After internment at Holsworthy where he acted as Chaplain to other Internees, he was deported and lived the next 7years in USA and England. (The weren’t afraid of him). He died in London in 1928.  His name was Fr Charles Jerger CP (google that for good reports).

The Sheikh asks for natural justice, ie, to know what he is accused of and the right to defend himself in law. He has been told that as a non citizen, he does not have any of those rights. But we know he has human and God given rights.

Meanwhile, the UN has asked for a stay on deportation so that they can investigate this case. We wait on that.

As a life long Labour voter, yesterday I found myself joining the chant of Shame Rudd Shame. I now wonder how I should vote at the next election. The days of the Whitlam Government in 1972-75 were short, but at least that PM brought social justice into the open and applied it.

We seem to have reverted to being a secret society once again.

Thanks for reading this. I pray that we become a country where true justice is given to all people, citizen and non citizen, as they are all God’s children.

Perhaps you might like to write to the PM. His deportation date is June 27.

John
Fr John Pearce CP
Parish Priest

Sydney, May 17: Immigration Minister Senator Chris Evans’ decision to deport Sheikh Mansour Leghaei is in direct contravention of the UN’s wishes, who sent in a formal request to the Australian Government last month.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva issued a request on April 21 asking the Australian Government not to deport Dr Leghaei and his accompanying dependants while it is considering his case.

Dr Leghaei’s legal team sent a petition to the UN Committee last month claiming the Government’s treatment of his case contravened the his human rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Australia is a party. Under the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, individuals in Australia may lodge complaints with the UN Committee if all domestic remedies have been exhausted.

Under Rule 92 of the UN Committee’s Rules of Procedure, a complainant may request urgent “interim measures” to prevent deportation where “irreparable harm” would occur if the deportation proceeded. Such measures remain in place until the complaint is finally determined, which usually takes about one year.

“Dr Leghaei was denied his human right to a procedurally fair hearing in the issue of an adverse security assessment by ASIO and in the decision to deport him which relied upon that assessment,” said Associate Professor Ben Saul, Co-Director of Sydney University’s Sydney Centre for International Law and one of the barristers who prepared the petition.

“Like numerous others who have been subject to adverse security assessments by ASIO, Dr Leghaei has never been told the basis of the allegations against him.

“Our strong case will have ramifications for others in Dr Leghaei’s situation both in Australia and internationally, where a person is unable to see or challenge any of the evidence against them.”

Dr Leghaei and his family, who have lived peacefully in Australia for 16 years, have never been granted permanent residency due to adverse security assessments issued against the Sheikh by ASIO several years ago.

In March Dr Leghaei appealed to the Minister to exercise his ministerial powers and allow him to remain in the country. On May 17 Senator Evans granted visas to Dr Leghaei’s wife and son but denied a visa to the Sheikh. He has been given six weeks to leave the country.

Australia is being accused of violating Articles 2, 13, 14, 23, 24 and 26 of the ICCPR .

His petition details that:

• Dr Leghaei has been denied a fair hearing in ASIO’s issue of an adverse security assessment, in the Department of Immigration’s decision to rely upon that assessment to refuse him a visa, and in all proceedings before the Migration Review Tribunal and Federal Court of Australia;
• He has been discriminated against because was denied procedural fairness because he was not an Australian citizen or permanent resident;
• The deportation cannot be justified because, in the absence of proof he is a genuine threat to national security, it would split his family and deprive his 14 year old daughter, an Australian citizen, of both her parents.

Media Contacts
Helen Signy 0425 202 654 email
Ben Saul 02 9351 0354, email
Father Dave Smith 02 9569 1255, email

Having submitted his formal appeal to the Minister for Immigration, Sheikh Mansour Leghaei has broken his silence and spoken openly to Lateline about his concern for his family and his ongoing hope for justice.

Sheikh Mansour’s story has been widely publicised in all the major Sydney papers this week and is gaining international attention.  Amongst other media pieces published this week:

• Sydney Morning Herald: “One last chance for cleric in ASIO’s sights“
• The Canterbury Torch and Valley Times publish “Forced Out“.
• The Australian publishes “Sheik Leghaei wins another month’s visa“
• The Leader publishes “Sheikh fights deportation after ASIO concerns“
• Sheikh Mansour and Ali are interviewed on JJJ Hack Radio
• Father Dave speaks on his relationship with Sheikh on ABC’s The Drum.

And the good news is that Sheikh Mansour has now been given an extension on his visa until the Minister for Immigration has considered his appeal.  The extension currently takes him through to the middle of April 2010