Save Nguyen Tuong Van

[Pleonastic]

FFS - does anyone seriously think boycotting products related to singapore are going to anything other than fuck over the people at the bottom of the food chain in those companies? If optus lose heaps of customers, singapore isn't going to stop hanging people, they're just going to make a bunch of people redundant (who probably really need their jobs to survive).

I understand the sentiment, but it's not very well thought through.

 

[chugs]

Knowing many people in Optus I can tell you that no one at that level "really need their jobs" - anyone that works in telco doesn't do it because they really need it, their imoblised by apathy and failure to do anything else.

if this was 1939 i wouldn't be buying german goods, no matter how many people need jobs from the Nazi's. Would you? (what's that idiom that if anyone mentions the Nazis in a debate the whole matter is indisputably won by the author of said idiom)....

The problem with boycotts is targeting the people responsible for the decision your protesting is pretty difficult.

For example I'll buy Simpson's DVD's, merchandise (and hell i'll download it and steal it for free) because they do good for the world (and for me), course some of my money is being funnelled into the coffers of Fox who in turn used their media might to railroad the war on terror onto everyone.

That said boycotting is symbolic of our struggle against opression - although it could be doomed to fail that fact shouldn't stop you from particpating.

 

[aunty establishment]

Pleo - you're so on the money. People boycott because it's the laziest possible way to show you're pissed off. I mean really, how hard is it to write a letter? I can tell you right now, the Singapore government cares not two jots about Australian boycotting. We're too wealthy and diversely invested for it to make a dent.

Boycotting Bali though - now *that* fucked me off.

 

[hoptis]

There have been a lot of opinion pieces in the Australian media over the last week since Nguyen's death offering commentary on drugs, specifically in relation to heroin abuse.

Some of these articles I wouldn't wipe my bum with, some others aren't too bad.

This is the first one I've seen that actually offers an alternative to zero tolerance as an approach to addressing the heroin problem.

Romancing the stoned: a fake glamour
By Tracee Hutchison
December 10, 2005

Drug addiction is pervasive, but the answers are elusive.

Lou Reed sang about it, Brett Whiteley painted on it and William Burroughs wrote about it - their muse glamorised beyond recognition. But, in reality, there is very little about heroin that warrants a romantic view. There is rarely a happy ending.

Which is what has been so confusing about the harrowing and intrusive recent coverage of the tragic aspects of the trade it creates.

For all the energy expended - all the pages of newsprint and hours of TV and radio coverage - in trying to save one life in Singapore, I fear we may have lost another opportunity to talk openly and honestly about why generation after generation of people continue to be lost to drug abuse.

We are still no closer to finding constructive outcomes for those who are dependent. No closer to understanding why life on a needle is the best choice available to some, no closer to moving past its dark stigma and into the heart of the problem.

Addiction of any kind, but heroin in particular, has a way of reducing its constituents to unwilling participants. That's another of its defining characteristics.

Heroin has never been more popular as a quick-fix panacea to the modern disconnect.

To those in its grasp, it starts as an effective painkiller, an emotional crutch or confidence boost. And it works - for a while - and then the roulette wheel spins again.

I've watched it turn the gentle and kind-hearted into people I barely recognise. I've watched it devour souls that too often end up lost.

If we were really serious about breaking cycles of addiction and averting the breakdown of family and community that comes with it, there would be more options for people who really do want a life without drugs but who have, for a whole range of reasons, temporarily lost the road map.

I'm yet to meet an addict who gleefully says: "I love being a junkie."

In Melbourne there are fewer than a handful of reputable drug rehabilitation facilities.

Alongside them a handful of charities buckle under the weight of picking up the slack, stretching limited resources both financial and personal - trying to mend the constant holes in their safety nets.

Yet, despite their best efforts, too many are falling through.

Our jails are full of people serving time for their addictions. Our schools are fuller than you might imagine with children who are trying to make sense of a home life that is very different to that of their friends, even daring to hope for a better life than the one they were born into.

They are kids who are probably more familiar with dialling 000 than phoning a friend to invite for a sleepover. Kids whose lives, if they're lucky, end up being shaped by aunts or uncles or grandparents.

The others enter the welfare system. That's what we do with them, while they try to remember the best of their mum or their dad.

Is it really good enough to think that jail or the welfare system is the best solution we've been able to come up with for those caught in the grip of drug addiction?

We're told from an early age that drugs are bad. But as we grow up, it becomes pretty obvious that prohibition does not work, that just saying no probably isn't the most realistic way of acknowledging that it is part of the human condition to enjoy an altered state of mind.

A few drinks, a quiet joint with friends, a line of cocaine or a half-tab of ecstasy to set the night up. It is a rare adult who has not enjoyed a night or few in the company of friends, the odd recreational drug or a few alcoholic beverages.

For most of us it stops at the hangover mantra to swear off alcohol or the short-lived post-use blues.

This is how it is for the lucky ones among us without a pre-disposition to an addictive personality.

I consider myself very fortunate that I've never attempted to rectify personal shortcomings, counter disappointments or self-medicated a depressive illness in a haze of illicit substances.

But I've seen it close enough, often enough.

There is nothing quite like the powerlessness of the realisation that you can't make someone stop using through love alone - and nothing as destructive as the roller-coaster of helplessness, frustration and despair of the alienation it breeds.

But the drug is not the problem.

The problem is much more wide-ranging and confronting than that.

The question is how many lives will it take before we move past the stigma of addiction and start directing some serious financial and moral support in the direction of those who need it most.

Tracee Hutchison is a Melbourne writer and broadcaster.

From The Age

 

[nige1492]

Thanks dada, and anyone else who wants to support a boycott. I guess it seems pretty selective to propose it in this case when there is just so much evil in the world, it may be we should all be boycotted by each other because no one is blameless and then where would we be. It may seem a little silly to suggest it and a drop in the bucket but even small actions speak louder than words even if they still seem to whisper. I just think doing something is better than nothing at all. I'm just glad I'm not one of the people on this board who thought Van deserved to die. Thanks for reading. Peace out.

 

[volume-A]

I have to make a stop over in singapore next year, while i wouldnt go their for a holiday id hardly cancel my trip for the sake of a drug smuggler. Respect their laws just like ud expect them to respect ours. No one dies.

 

[chugs]

If there was a law in Singapore that required you to kiss the feet of a rabbit (lets pretend a rabbit is a sacred animal in that country) would you still respect their laws and act in accordance of it's requirement?

Especially if you had a stop over and didn't pass through the custom gate thus technically still in international territory?

 

[w0bBLeD]

Personally I can't see why people are making a big fuss over his death unless you were his family or a friend, I do think its sad what happened but that just doesn't excuse the guy from being a convicted criminal. I know he didn't deserve death with the story to why he done it and in the eyes of a lot of Australians and but since he was caught in another country red handed where they have the death penality for this crime the law should be respected and I don't think that there should be an exception made regardless of a criminal's story or nationality.

Especially if you had a stop over and didn't pass through the custom gate thus technically still in international territory?

Sorry if this is off topic but how on earth is that classed as international territory.

I always thought that the moment you step off of the plane you are on that countries land, not international land. I know that you are kept in a transit area and you aren't aloud to leave until you've been through customs but that is still that countries land. I would like some clarification on this if it can be provided.

 

[dada]

Thanks dada, and anyone else who wants to support a boycott. I guess it seems pretty selective to propose it in this case when there is just so much evil in the world, it may be we should all be boycotted by each other because no one is blameless and then where would we be. It may seem a little silly to suggest it and a drop in the bucket but even small actions speak louder than words even if they still seem to whisper. I just think doing something is better than nothing at all. I'm just glad I'm not one of the people on this board who thought Van deserved to die. Thanks for reading. Peace out.

Im still with optus..

I Dont think nyuyen deserve death, i dont think he deserved freedom either. AmericA still i think executes people lets boycott america!

 

[chugs]

Personally I can't see why people are making a big fuss over his death unless you were his family or a friend, I do think its sad what happened but that just doesn't excuse the guy from being a convicted criminal. I know he didn't deserve death with the story to why he done it and in the eyes of a lot of Australians and but since he was caught in another country red handed where they have the death penalty for this crime the law should be respected and I don't think that there should be an exception made regardless of a criminal's story or nationality.

Time and time against I see posts from people justifying Van's death on a nonsensical intangible called "respect" and that that those defending Van were only doing so based on his nationality. Show me a single post that said "Van shouldn't die because his Australia" - The media didn't post a single story to this effect and nor did any commentator (be it in the public or Bluelight).

Hiding behind an intangible like "respect" is wrong, especially when a human life is in the balance. Killing and long prison sentences simply show how we're too apathetic, lazy and selfish to bother bringing that person back into the fold, healing their pain which caused the mistake in the first place.

Take Murdoch for example. It's undeniable he is a violent brute of a man yet (irrespective of whether he killed Falconio) yet I believe it's wrong to put him in a pit for 25 years.

Why, because inside that shell of a violence and hate is a person who is no more or less noble then Jesus, Mandela or Gandhi.

We all start out as a blank piece of clay, molded by the environment we live, influenced by millions of streams of information, actions and consequences. We claim we live in a complex world, that's just double-speak for showing that we are just leaves in a hurricane, being thrown around with no ability to influence the very winds that surround us.

We're lucky to have a life where our parents/ancestors acquired sufficient wealth, energy (rightly or wrongly), and ability to create a stable future for some of us (even then we all live problematic and difficult lives).

Are we to crucify everyone who weren't given that? I believe we cast them aside because they shame us, they reflect our societies inability to actually resolve problems. We throw individuals into pits of hell because they so clearly illustrate our failings and scare us to with how dangerously close we are to the edge of chaos.

The thugs in the recent riots are simply acting in accordance with the real ideals that society has embolden onto them - violence, hatred, anger and pain.

Do you remember that picture of the man being pummeled from behind, there is picture of a shirtless lanky long haired (light brown/reddish hair) person in mid swing with a bottle (beer flowing out of it)- their face is contorted in a ugly picture agony, anger and pain - it was like years of being left behind, living a boring, painful life had bubbled to the surface, out letting itself in a violent escape of hate - that is the saddest thing about the race riots, that we let our friends, brother, unkles, mothers, sisters, fathers grandparents, cousins get to this point.

However back to Van, the worst part of this thread is the hypocrisy, it stinks to the high heavens. Take all your mistakes and ask yourself what would happened if you were penalised to the full extent of the law you so respect, would you be a free human being or spending the rest of your life in prison?

Sorry if this is off topic but how on earth is that classed as international territory..

International terminals are considered exactly that, international - that's why you don't need a visa to disembark on a stopover - you don't pass custom. That doesn't stop the country in question from flooding the terminals with security personnel wherein in safety takes precedent over immigration & international law. I wouldn't have been surprised if Van was going through a safety checkpoint, designed to sniff out weapons/explosives when it coincidentally resulted in the discovery of the heroin.

There is a great movie about a man claiming asylum in a western country (I think in the US). Because he didn't have a visa, passport or even citizenship he wasn't allowed to leave the airport or purchase a ticket. I believe for a decade he tirelessly tried to claim asylum at several countries. He lived at the airport, eating scrapes and making money doing odd-jobs. He slept on benches etc. I believe the airport staff also helped him out.

Sadly he died there and subsequently a movie was made about it (came out last year) - which is ironic because that might have been the very thing that freedom him.

Because he was on international territory he was in a no-mans land. He could leave but technically wasn't violating any law.

 

[Bent Mk2]

If there was a law in Singapore that required you to kiss the feet of a rabbit (lets pretend a rabbit is a sacred animal in that country) would you still respect their laws and act in accordance of it's requirement?

Whatever points you may have won earlier for a reasoned argument have just gone out the door. 8) 8) 8)

 

[nige1492]

It appears I made a mistake when I suggested earlier that the Singapore government had an ownership interest in TRUenergy. Sorry for that. I quote from Sarah Stent, TRUenergy Public Affairs, "TRUenergy has no association with Singapore or the Singapore government and we are not a part of the Singapore Power company". (From Sydney's SX Newspaper Letters to the Editor pages of 15/12/05).
I've removed the reference to TRUenergy in my earlier post.

 

[w0bBLeD]

Hiding behind an intangible like "respect" is wrong, especially when a human life is in the balance. Killing and long prison sentences simply show how we're too apathetic, lazy and selfish to bother bringing that person back into the fold, healing their pain which caused the mistake in the first place.

If you don't like the idea of respecting another countries law why don't you go on a big crusade and try and save every Australian criminal in other countries who have been incarcerated or are about to be.