To: Phillip Ruddock, Attorney-General, Australia

The Age: “Mr Ruddock said while the US had not yet told him what charges Hicks would face, he was confident the accused terrorist would receive a fair trial.”

Can you possibly be this naive?

But perhaps I should be asking: Can you possibly be this
disingenuous? Or plainly dishonest?

By the way, with respect to your decision in November:

In 2006, Philip Ruddock blocked a gay Australian man from marrying in Europe. Ruddock refused to grant a gay man living in the Netherlands a 'Certificate of No Impediment' document required by some European countries before marriage, to prove foreigners are in fact single. Ruddock decided that such documents were not to be released to gay and lesbians individuals intending to marry overseas. The government made the statement, ""Following the advice of the Australian Attorney-General's Department we herewith certify that Australian law does not allow the issue of a Certificate of No Impediment to Marriage to persons wishing to enter into a same-sex marriage." He went on to say that he did not believe there was community support for same-sex marriage.

– is this your idea of democratic rule: That you sound out something fatuously called “the community” to determine whether it supports a practice, and then make it so? This is the infamous tyranny of democracy, writ large. No doubt you applaud the country’s history of other bigotries, too, as those, too, were backed by majority support?

Sincerely...