In terms of the boycott of Indonesia - it's not particularly relevant whether or not Corby is guilty. Corby's case however has brought this kind of thing into the public eye though. For the first time the media has been flooded with many cases of ppl jailed for life in Indonesia for drug possesion that was planted on them. Some of these cases have even had the Indonesian government acknowledge that they were not guilty but they were put in jail anyway.
(I'm mainly refering to a case that was shown on the Chanel 9 Today show of a man who severd 11 years of a life sentance. During those 11 years he lost his eye, large portion of his intestines several organs and by all accounts should be dead.)
Why do you so readily trust information that you have gathered from a single source? Being a Bluelighter, you should understand that the media will inform people in a way that is consistent with the current social climate. So if you are (surely) quick to criticise manipulative reporting on things like ecstasy-related deaths, why are you so quick to trust what you see on commercial news? Perhaps you should seek the opinions and claims of other sources, from around the world, from varying political persuasions etc (if you haven't already).
And also, a reminder for everyone - when we discuss things here, our comments are automatically far more credible if we are able to provide SOURCES for our claims; whether those claims be about the effects of a drug, or about the number of people jailed innocently, you shouldn't pull them out of your arse - post a source, a reference, and then your argument will be stronger.
Now it seems that if we go on holiday in Bali we run the risk of having baggage handlers mess with our bags in Aus, we run the risk of having drugs planted on us in Bali or being blown up by muslim extremists. Can you blame ppl for saying that we shouldn't go?
Yes, baggage handlers messing with your bags in AUS - why should that be a risk going to Bali only? Speculation about the baggage handler ring had nothing to do with Bali specifically - it was an alleged domestic smuggling ring where something went wrong and the buds ended up in Bali. So that has nothing to do with Bali specifically. If you are convinced that Aussie baggage handlers did it, then why not boycott Australian airports?
If you are protesting the draconian drug laws in Indonesia, and are afraid of the potential to get caught up in drug-related bullshit by going over there (or becoming a victim of religious fundamentalism), then I believe your choice to abstain from visiting Indonesia is justified. Just don't scream around 'boycott this boycott that' out of heated anger motivated by underlying prejudice.
Always question which of the following is more dominant in influencing your opinions:
a) Fear of the possibility that activities like terrorism and corruption could potentially make a victim of you, or b) Seizing an excuse which lets you justify your xenophobic feelings, which serves to drive a further divide between your culture and the culture that you are afraid of.
Perhaps I lack experience, but in my eyes, citing issues like a bubbling threat of Muslim extremism is a reflection of the 'War on Terror' mentality that has permeated society - much like all of those people who we bitch and cry about here on Bluelight: the thought-vacuum victims of the 'War on Drugs' mentality who think a dope fiend is waiting to get their kids addicted around every corner. Don't be so accepting of a general consensus that terrorists are out there waiting to get you - statistically, it is not very risky at all to travel to Indonesia. Justifying your boycott of Indonesia by citing terrorist threat as the reason is (statistically) akin to refusing to use methamphetamine because there is a chance you could get addicted to it - which is more than OK with many people, so....
charlesbronson - If i was walking behind you down the street and slipped something into your back pocket without you knowning - then later that day you were searched. Would you think it was fair that you get done for it?? WHen really all you did wrong was walk down the street?
If you slipped something into my pocket, and I got searched, I would be so pissed off that I would explode with the force of 600 Hiroshima bombs. But even that wouldn't make the police change their mind about charging me with possession.
The issue here is not whether or not you should be pissed off if you are found in possession of something illegal that doesn't actually belong to you, or that you didn't know about - ofcourse the victim should be pissed off in such a situation. But legally, it wouldn't change the fact that the police had the evidence to charge me with possession UNLESS I could prove that it was someone else's and I didn't know about it. Otherwise, everyone caught with drugs in their pockets could plead ignorance and the police couldn't get anywhere.
Whilst it would probably help your case if you were found with drugs and didn't admit that you owned them or knew they were there, it is still unreasonable to expect a case such as Corby's to be thrown out purely because she claims that the drugs were planted. That is why the burden is put on her to prove her innocence - because the fact that she was already in possession is enough to show her guilt - if she can provide evidence that the drugs were planted (ie. that the prosecution evidence does not support their charge), then her case will be dismissed. How much is the prosecution supposed to prove when they find someone directly in possession?
Now if Corby is in fact telling the truth, then her situation is fucked, and I feel for her deeply - it is yet another event in this world that makes it much easier to appreciate my life in comparison, yet with that appreciation comes despair at the state that the world is in. And even if she is a drug smuggler, she is still a victim of pathetic drug laws in Indonesia and throughout the world, for so many reasons; in short, she deserves nothing like a 20 year jail sentence.
"Blatant intimidation of other (often poorer) nations, is a foolish way to instigate change."
Why is it foolish? How else are you goin to instigate change? I don't believe there is any other method that would work.
This scenario will hopefully demonstrate why it is foolish:
America: "Hey Iraq, change your government, you evil despotic cunts."
Iraq: "No! What happens in my country is none of your concern. There are other regimes that are worse than mine, yet you are bumchums with them, so fuck off!"
America: "HUH? Now hold your horses. We are freedom loving people, and we will not negotiate with your terrorist regime. Get rid of your weapons of mass destruction, and that troll living under the bridge in Baghdad, or we will be forced to kill your people"
Iraq: "Look, I can appreciate that you have a disgusting annual military budget that runs into the trillions of dollars while your elderly can't afford to buy medicines etc etc, and that you can kick my arse good if you want to, but what makes you think that you have the right to behave in this way? Perhaps we should both swallow our pride, and make some concessions. Here, I'll let you have a look around my house again if you want confirmation that i got rid of those weapons."
America: "Ok, enough is enough, you slimy A-rabs, we told you to spontaneously combust, or else we will be forced to do it for you - ok, your refusal to inhibit your existence means that we must immediately use our military, political, and economic advantage to overthrow your leadership."
Iraq: "Arrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
America: "The world is now a better place. We have instigated change by killing over a hundred thousand people, setting a precedent for future unilateral armed conflict in the interests of agressive imperialism, boosting the cause and justifying the dogma of terrorism directed against the west, committed human rights atrocities that have blurred any claimed difference between our despotic regime and the one we overthrew, and gotten our hands on the last stockpiles of texas tea jugs so we can do it to the rest of the world once oil runs out! YEEEEHAAAA"
Ok, maybe some exaggeration in there, but this is the most obvious example of instigating change through intimidation and subsequent aggression.
What is wrong with it? Well, there are two sides to every tale - how are you attempting to understand another's perspective if you think aggression is a justifiable path to follow on the way to making changes? That only means that the nation who has the strongest political, military, and economic stature will be the one who is the best instigator of change, and therefore the world will be under their influence and (eventually) total rule.
It is foolish because it is not fair, ESPECIALLY in the context of international relations. What chance do third world countries stand if intimidation is the way to instigate change? Do you think that e.g. Latin America and the USA are equally matched to have an intimidation face-off if both of the countries dislike aspects of one another? Fuck no, to the extent that if one country refuses to change, the stronger country will simply go in and overtly or covertly overthrow the government to make it the way they want it to be.
Intimidation may be a common way in which change is instigated, but in my opinion it is a destructive way to go about it.
![[S]alvatore](/community/data/avatars/m/56/56829.jpg?1554214538){kind=avatar}
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
. Maybe seeing you in front of the firing squad would kick ass.
