So Premier Mike Rann wants an unconditional "sorry" from David Hicks, and Gerard Henderson believes "The Hicks fan club is in denial".
It seems to me that many people miss the point at issue in this whole thing. David Hicks may well have done some stupid, misguided or even malicious things. It may well be that his actions were morally blameworthy or even legally criminal. No-one I know has said that Hicks is a model citizen or a moral example. But Hicks is a private citizen, and it is as a private citizen that he should have faced whatever sanctions (from social opprobrium to legal incarceration) were appropriate to his offenses. He does not represent the Australian people any more than any other individual Australian, many, many of whom also offend against societal or legal norms. He does not therefore 'owe' the Australian people a public apology in any meaningful sense.
On the other hand, our elected politicians do, by their own choice and by our electoral confirmation of them, represent us, and thus have a public duty to uphold the democratic ideals and legal principles of the country they serve. If they choose to deny such legal principles of long-standing for what has seemed to many to be merely political reasons, then they have offended against the public whom they represent and public apology is appropriate.
So whether (for the sake of argument) Alexander Downer can be said to have lived a more morally upright life than David Hicks is not the issue. David Hicks' mistakes or crimes are those of a private citizen and should be judged as such. The politicians who failed to stand up for his rights as an Australian are on the other hand guilty of an offense against the trust they took on as our elected representatives and should answer for that offense to the public they have wronged.
Recent Comments