06 December 2007

One law for the ...?

Two contrasting stories.

1. In this week's Bulletin
Rodney Adler writes of his time in prison.

Apropos of this, yesterday
The Australian reported:

The Bulletin's editor-in-chief, John Lehmann, said the magazine had offered Adler the standard contributor rate for his tale but that Adler had asked for a payment to be made to a Jewish charity instead.

"Adler understands that many Australians, especially those who lost money in the collapse of the HIH insurance group, remain angry with him for his role in the corporate disaster," Lehmann told The Australian. "He knows he will probably never recover his credibility. But his article is not an attempt to appease or justify his actions. Rather, it seeks to build on our understanding of what prison life is like for inmates and their families."

Adler was sentenced on April 14, 2005, after pleading guilty to four charges arising from his conduct as a director of HIH. The insurer collapsed in March 2001, with debts of $5.3 billion.

2. Today ABC News reports:

New law and order measures have taken effect today in South Australia, including laws to stop convicted terrorism supporter David Hicks from selling his story after he is freed from jail this month.

SA Premier Mike Rann says Hicks is free to tell his story but cannot make money from it. Mr Rann says it should be remembered that Hicks pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism when he faced trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

"Court documents show that he received training on guerilla warfare, weapons, kidnapping and assassination and I don't regard those activities as those of a good citizen," Mr Rann said.

SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson warns that Hicks can be deprived of any money he accepts for telling his story.

"We're happy for David Hicks to tell his story but we will prevent him making a profit out of it," Mr Atkinson said. "And if a profit is made we'll take that money and put it into the victims of crime fund."

Am I alone in seeing an inconsistency or two here?

Update later 6 December

I've just noticed the news.com.au version of the David Hicks story, which has airbrushed out all references to Mr Rann. Perhaps the Premier has sniffed the breeze of the comments on the ABC website, which are mostly critical of the Australian authorities.






No comments: