• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

the shapelle corby televised judgement

Lets hang on for a minute,before we go pointing the finger we ought to clean up our own backyard....A little story,a person i know who had a young family,a mortgage etc,worked for mitsubishi motors car plant.After 11 years service he was accused of an indiscretion.The person who made the claim was sent home with pay and he was made to stay behind and grilled by management,no union rep.Anyway the issue was taken to the industrial relations commision(rife with union criminal activity)and told to give it up because it"would take years and cost thousands".Needless to sat he lost everything,including his marriage,which led to him being seperated from his children.This was such agony for him because he became unemployable.Ultimatly it led to his suicide...Something that happens on a daily basis but done with such stealth that there isnt even anything to be swept under the carpet.To think this global giant that has had the state over a barrel for 15 years with financial bailouts to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars,who have a business ethos that can only be described as"slimy".Nepotism,which gives birth to poor unfair dismissal laws and out of control workplace bullying is thanks to john coward(sic).So do i boycott oz?yeah,im getting out of skippyland for good cos the country is full of skips who vote him in time and time again.Or better still,give everyone who supports him slap.He baled his brothers company out of recievership and got his son off a drink drive charge,so all ive got to say about schappele corby is if shes not guilty it is terrible but if she is go get gucked....As far as the afp is concerned,they been neck deep in this shit for 15 years
 
This certainly is a powderkeg waiting to explode. My concern with this whole issue is not the fact that Corby was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years, it is how easily some of you are manipulated by the media.
There are numerous Australians that have faced similar fates in Indonesia along with other westerners. No one seems to bat an eyelid when this occurs as it is not paraded by the media as Corby's case has been. If you all feel so strongly about the injustice that has been done, then do something about it. The media controls too many members of this great nation of ours and I believe individuals need to start thinking for themselves and not have their opinions clouded by the medias reporting.:p
 
Dr Raper said:
20 years is good news, a scumbag drug dealer is locked away. least my tax dollars won't go into feeding her.

According to an interview with Alexander Downer, the Australian govt apparently provided "significant" financial support to Corby's defence. The govt is also going to fund the allocation of 2 Australian QC's to her appeal, and failing any successful appeals, there is the very real liklihood that she will spend that majority of her sentence in an Australian jail.

I wouldn't hold out for any Corby-related tax relief in the near future. 8)
 
1) You can tell the difference between holding a bag 4kg of cannibus and boogie board.
2) Dads been busted for drug dealing before.
3) Been to to bali 33 times, what kind of business is she holding?
4) There are signs everywhere in indonesia airport stating drug trafficing results to death penalty.
5) Corbys mum has made all australian sound like a bad sport.
6) Tsunami has nothing to do with drug trafficing.
7) Tax payers are supporting aid to drug smugglers.
8) Australia isnt king shit.
9) Howard is australia`s prime minister not a international prime police, so he has no blame to this.
10) The media has interfered with the verdict and also giving others the idea of boycotting a country that laws and business are seperate issues.
 
Dr Raper said:
mate i wouldve preferred to see her on the firing range live on TV that wouldve kicked ass

:\ . Maybe seeing you in front of the firing squad would kick ass.
 
1) You can tell the difference between holding a bag 4kg of cannibus and boogie board.
2) Dads been busted for drug dealing before.
3) Been to to bali 33 times, what kind of business is she holding?
4) There are signs everywhere in indonesia airport stating drug trafficing results to death penalty.
5) Corbys mum has made all australian sound like a bad sport.
6) Tsunami has nothing to do with drug trafficing.
7) Tax payers are supporting aid to drug smugglers.
Australia isnt king shit.
9) Howard is australia`s prime minister not a international prime police, so he has no blame to this.
10) The media has interfered with the verdict and also giving others the idea of boycotting a country that laws and business are seperate issues.
11) Prosecution prove her guilt, beyond reasonable doubt? Shit, she was caught red-handed in possession of a bag chock-full of buds at the airport. Bungled investigation aside, I can hardly see how the charges should be thrown out given that the fact is solid: she had them in her possession, therefore the claim that the prosecution make against her is justified by the evidence that they have. Sure, ask for more consideration of the controversies surrounding the case, but don't expect someone caught red-handed to have the charges dismissed because there may be an alternative explanation to why they had it on them - unless they can provide some tangible evidence to attest to their claim of innocence.


There is too much anti-Indonesian sentiment around. Sadly, I think it is a reflection of Australian social mentality. Criticise the design of their justice system, but don't stoop to making personal attacks against their people/country/culture.

Why is this country becoming more and more like the USA? Some of these fucking ads on TV about Corby remind me of pathetic Fox News and similar news channels popular in the US, a disturbing conversion of real current events into sensationalised action-packed drama to entertain people for a few weeks; voyeuristic excitement, shameless commercialisation, cheap tactics, yet seemingly embraced more and more by our society.

Now another step closer to the good old USA - "Hey, let's boycott Indonesia!!! Fuck those peasants, no more charity money from me! Man, our government gives them so much aid money, they ought to be letting us choose their parliament, not just letting us dictate how they should run their legal system!!!!"

Blatant intimidation of other (often poorer) nations, is a foolish way to instigate change. It is not activism, it is imperialism. Are your sentiments an expression of shock and anger as you come to terms with a decision you disagree with, or are they a manifestation of attitudes with a deeper foundation?
 
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.)

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?

Bungled investigation aside, I can hardly see how the charges should be thrown out given that the fact is solid

I think alot of people's anger is towards the bungled hearing. The judge reading a book during trial. Not allowing Corby to have her statement translated so he could understand it. Allowing evidence to be admissable in the court when it was about the english language and those giving the evidnece couldn't speak english - or even agree on what was said.

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?

I agree with you though about the sensationalised reporting style. Particularly the ads for the live verdict. "You've seen the struggle, the tears and the anticipation.... Now watch every nail biting second of the live verdict in High Definition surround sound....."

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.

Niec Tits
 
Sadly I think the best she can hope for is a prisoner exchange program. I believe we have a few fishermen of theirs....

I'm not suggesting others should boycott indonesia thats a matter for everyone to decide for them selves. But I certainly am, because as a drug user I do not wish to contribute to the economy of a country that regards drug use in such a ridiculous illogical way. Fuck Australias policies are bad enough.

Did anyone catch insight on sbs 24/05/2005 ?
That indonesian bloke was justifying the murder of drug dealers on the grounds that drugs kill people. I can't understand this mentallity. A drug is an innanimate object. No one forces you to use drugs. Therefore if you die from using them you are resposible. Not the person you bought them off. This is about as intelligent as rounding up car dealers that sold the cars that people die in and shooting them! And besides how many fucking people DIE from using cannabis?

The other thing that this guy pissed me off with is the fact that he acknowlaged that the indonesian police/courts have been corrupt in the past, yet he seemed to think that now that they are a democracy of sorts that the perception of corruption should change in Australians minds? I don't thinks so fuckface. Anyone who has been to bali will tell you nothing has changed.:X

MEh this whole thing will be forgotten about in a few years, just like all the other australians that get fucked by the law in other countrys.

As for bali bomber Abu Bakar Ba'asyir getting a 30month prison sentence -- I'm sure they could have just shot him if they wanted to. Remember the dealer living in indonesia linked to the other 9 people ? Shot dead in his home because ALLEGEDLY he was armed or some bullshit. I'd guess the only thing he was armed with was knowlage of police corruption.
They didnt want to shoot Abu Bakar Ba'asyir because there wasn't any thing in it for them. It would have created to much unrest amongst all his fanatic supporters.
 
I rekon saying a countrys law isn`t fair or it is bullshit is like saying your religion is sux.
 
As the prodigy says (fuck them, and there law)

Yeah, it's time to break out the F-111's I say. I was talking to an American about the case and apparently this sort of thing happens all the time with Americans in mexico, the only difference is that when the American embassy says "jump" the Mexican response is "how high?".....It's good to be a superpower.

I really don't see how a government as corrupt as indonesia should have the responsibility of sentencing anyone to jail. I think the case was more about sticking the finger to Australia, the judge's attitude was absolutely disgusting, when he commented on the verdict he said "go to hell" referring to schapelle. This sort of sentencing does nothing to change drug use in your country. t's vindictive and barbaric.
The cheering during sentencing was a bit much. Drug-use is a victim-less crime, there was no need for excitement.

Not testing the weed or finger printing the bag seems a little illogical when the defence's argument was presented. If her prints were on the bag then her case would be shot to pieces and there could be no further argument after that. It seemed like there was little carefactor for due-process.
 
whether she is guilty or not is not up to me to deside...
but guilty or not this girl has been made an example of...
she is 27yrs old, she will will get out at 47yrs old...
this girl has lost the most important time in her life...
she wont get married, she wont be able to have kids or grandkids.... her family could pass away and she will not be able to go to the funeral... her friends will move on...
and when she gets out of jail, what is she getting out to....
pretty much NOTHING.... put ur self in this girls shoes for a moment think of what she is going through....

The sentence does not fit the crime...4 fucking kg of dope...
people who are murders, rapists, child molesterses, get less time which repulses me...

this girl will appeal... and that judge will not have a bar of it... he will not do a trade... he has the power for once of an australian matter and can see how it is affecting us all and he LOVES it this girl has no chance NEVER had a chance and guilty or not my heart goes out to her and her family.....
 
I cant beleieve that this scumbag nation,whom might i add help these people smugglers who bring the children we lock up in detention by providing a gateway for them and we pay them an obscene amount of money in aid to them.Is it to appease them because we are afriad of a future invasion,i mean fuck they cant feed thier own people but they have an army of 300,000.Oh, and as far as being tough on drugs,why is thier so much drug use going on inside the jail?BRIBERY.By the way clocker,there is not one mexican i know that would back down against anybody let alone a seppo....8(
 
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.
 
^unfortunately that's how the world works. There's no morality or civility. We claim to be higher than the animals, but there is little evidence of this in our behaviour which is dictated by nature's law (survival of the fittest).
I agree with what you are saying, but we don't live in an ideal world.
 
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).

I have done this - What I was trying to say was that its the first time the general public has been made aware of these happenings.

I agree with clocker. Its very nice to say that intimidation isn't a FAIR way to instigate change but we don't live in an ideal world. What other route can be taken? Terrorism is a very real threat to America (watch Farenhype 9/11 and you'll see how many terrorist threats have been prevented by the patriot act in New York alone since 9/11). I think America's attack on Iraq is much more complicated than the scenario you depict.

As far as I can tell the only bargaining chip that Australia has over Indonesia is tourism. Hence the call for the boycott. It may not be a fair way to convince Indonesia that we don't particularly appreciate their legal system but what else can we do? We could write a petition or something but i'm sure it would go straight in the bin.

I'm sure there are also plenty of people that would also say "if you don't like their legal system then don't go there". But thats exactly what the boycott would achive.

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.

I would imagine that only people of this view would participate in the boycott anyway.

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.

I think that's a fair enough comment. I know that I personally make an effort to not take race into account when discussing such matters. But I think many people may not - how many posts in this thread read something along the lines of "fuck those stupid asians and their fucking stupid laws"???? Of course it works both ways. The jusge has done little to make it easy for westerners to understand the other side of the story with his comments and obvious lack of care for another human being. I think you could make out a good argument for their xenophobic feelings further dividing the culture gap as well.

Nice Tits
 
Charlesbronson can you provide a refrence or source for that conversation between america and Iraq or did you pull it out of your ass.
 
^^^^^^^
Smartarse, he said;
"Ok, maybe some exaggeration in there, but this is the most obvious example of instigating change through intimidation and subsequent aggression."

Of course he made it up....
 
I wonder what would have happened to the dope if Corby had terminated her trip in Sydney instead of continuing on to Bali? 8)
 
charlesbronson - LOL!! hhahaah

did anyone see 60 minutes last night??? they had these people on there who said that when they went to bali a few years ago, they didnt get checked at customs or whatever, but when they got to there hotel room they opened the bags up and one of the bags had a shoebox sized brick of weed in it.

the bloke whos bags were tampered with shat himself, rang the embassy or other local aussie official, who said to him "get rid of it, if you get caught you will die"

so he started flushing it, then got about half way thru and was like "holy fuck - what if some crazy dealer cunt is coming for this pot? he's gonna kill me"

imagine that being you?? come on, as if corby was that dumb. even the smartest of big brother housemates isnt THAT dumb to take weed INTO bali, as opposed to bringing it back.
 
I agree with clocker. Its very nice to say that intimidation isn't a FAIR way to instigate change but we don't live in an ideal world. What other route can be taken? Terrorism is a very real threat to America (watch Farenhype 9/11 and you'll see how many terrorist threats have been prevented by the patriot act in New York alone since 9/11). I think America's attack on Iraq is much more complicated than the scenario you depict.

OK, so we don't live in an ideal world. Then what if Indonesia wants to instigate some change of its own? Did it ever occur to you that our aussie lifestyle of partying, debauchery, sex, drugs, rock'n'roll might be unpopular with them? Or maybe they don't like how long we sentence child pornographers here in Australia - we should give them the death penalty, they might say. Or perhaps they don't like it when we lock up young Indonesian student Surpel Korbiyono for breaking someone's nose after they gave him grief about the little Muslim cap he wears on his head, because in Indonesia such a reaction would be acceptable.

So what would you say if Indonesia invaded your homeland, which they could supposedly do with ease because of their military might, and justified their aggression by saying "Well we don't live in a perfect world, and therefore we feel that it is OK to instigate change by overthrowing your government, you crazy infidel Ossis". I mean, how else do you change another country that you don't like?

This is the trouble with your view - it is inconsistent. Ofcourse you would never concede that it is fair for Indonesia to do the very thing that you claim it is fine for Australia to do. That is where my view is far more rational - it applies to both nations. Indonesia has no right to intimidate us with military or economic aggression, and neither do we have the right to intimidate them. It may not be a perfect world, but that doesn't stop you from having an understanding of the kind of moral attitudes that might stabilise the conflict that surrounds us in this day and age.

I also do not totally accept your specious reasoning concerning America. It is all well and good to attribute the lack of terrorist attacks in New York to the Patriot Act - but how frequently did terrorist attacks occur in New York BEFORE the Patriot Act? Oh, about 2 or 3 every 10-15 years. WOW!!!! WHAT A DIFFERENCE THE PATRIOT ACT HAS MADE! Your reasoning is faulty. There is no evidence to suggest that the threat against America was bigger after 9/11 than it was before, therefore there is no reason for me to believe that there should have been more terrorist attacks over the past 4 years than there have been, therefore there is no evidence that the Patriot Act has done anything (apart from shit on civil liberties in the land of the free), because as far as evidence shows me, the rate of terrorist attacks has not changed after 9/11.

It's kind of like this: I hide a crystal ball under my bed, and tell my family that I keep it there because ever since I put it there no ninjas have come to attack me in the night, therefore the crystal ball is doing something to keep ninjas away. So I will leave it there. How many ninjas have attacked me before the crystal ball? Less than 2 in 20 years. But that isn't the point riiiight? I mean it is all to do with how many ninjas have attacked me after I put the crystal ball there, and the answer is NONE! So my crystal ball is fucking fantastic at keeping stealthy ninjas away (no it is not for sale).

But please, prove me wrong by showing me real statistics on how many genuine terrorist threats were stopped by the Patriot Act (as opposed to how many people named Shazhad were locked in a cell and forced to create naked human pyramids). It is all well and good to reference a movie, but I haven't seen it - and if the claim of the movie has any basis, then you should easily find me another source that confirms the claims of the movie, perhaps one that I can access easily with my clicky-finger.

What other route can be taken to initiate change? How about this one (in the year 3048 ):

"United Nations Motion 465: Australia seeks drug law reform:"
--Australian UN Envoy: "Dear UN, our people at home in Australia have proven that recreational drug use is an activity that is commonplace and important in the lives of many people. As a result there has been a huge lobby for the government to take action in preventing harm associated with an unregulated black market of recreational drug supply. We have thus chosen to reform our drug laws and seek that you assess our case and its successes, and any failures, and in light of your findings make recommendations about law reform in neighbouring countries."
--UN: "Well Australia, your results are great. Let us forward them to Indonesia - Indonesia, if we offer you a greater responsibility in UN decisions concerning trade of minerals, will you consider easing the troublesome situation with drugs in your country, perhaps based on Australia's model? Oh, and could you also please free Schapelle Corby?"
--Indonesia: "Well, since you asked so nicely, we will deeply consider your request, and it is my opinion that it is very likely that it will be accepted."

Look, I'm no sophisticated diplomat (and my scenarios are unrealistic but their basis is sound), but asking "what other ways?" in a futile tone is a bit defeatist. I mean, if we have the ability to build tanks and fighter jets and wage wars, I'm sure we have the capacity to sit down and think about how we might make an agreement on certain issues that both parties can be happy with without feeling as though an injustice has been committed. It is done on many fronts; trade, military co-operation, tourism etc etc.

As far as I can tell the only bargaining chip that Australia has over Indonesia is tourism. Hence the call for the boycott. It may not be a fair way to convince Indonesia that we don't particularly appreciate their legal system but what else can we do?

How far do you seriously think this will get you? Do you think Indonesia is an 8 year old boy who doesn't do his homework, and therefore we shouldn't let him eat his favourite kettle® chips?

What if Indonesia turns around and decides that the unreasonable action taken by Australians who are punishing a whole nation for being consistent with its own legal system is unfair? And to recover their economic losses, they decide that they should invade the Northern Territory to pillage its natural resources and recover its losses, because they don't particularly appreciate our way of expressing disapproval of their legal system?


I would imagine that only people of this view would participate in the boycott anyway.

Those same people should then be consistent with their beliefs, and avoid travelling through airports at all in Australia. Are we forgetting that the drugs were supposedly planted on her by an Australian baggage handler at an Australian airport, as part of a DOMESTIC smuggling ring? This means that drugs lost in transit could turn up anywhere, in anyone's didgeridoo sack - therefore it is unsafe to travel by air at all. If Corby had ended up in the same situation here in Aus, she still would have been found guilty, rest assured - because there is no solid evidence to support her counterclaim that the drugs did not belong to her. So if you are going to be a boycott-bandit, then boycott Australian airports too.

Arguments like "THEY DIDN'T FINGERPRINT THE BAGGGGGGG MANNNNNN!!!!" don't do shit in the way of proving her innocence. So what if they didn't find her fingerprints on the bag anyway? That just means she didn't handle it herself - anyone could have packed it for her, and she could have smuggled it. Simple, yeah? The law doesn't work on feelings or hunches - ask yourselves why you look into her eyes and see innocence that leads you to believe that circumstantial doubt is enough to justify an automatic rejection of the charges laid against her. Especially when there is just as much circumstantial bullshit about her case that could be interpreted as incriminating her.

I think you could make out a good argument for their xenophobic feelings further dividing the culture gap as well.

I probably could, but I'm hoping that there is an Indonesian person somewhere out there who shares my attitudes, with whom I could easily relate - and hopefully that person is taking it upon him/herself to relate rational views to his own people. I am far more involved in the society surrounding me, so I will naturally feel the urge to get more involved in pointing out what I think needs analysis in my society, and leaving the Indonesian person to get similarly involved in their own society which they understand much better than I do. But granted, similar xenophobic and racist sentiments surely exist toward Australians in Indonesian society.


Originally posted by pill_jockey
Charlesbronson can you provide a refrence or source for that conversation between america and Iraq or did you pull it out of your ass.

Please refer to the fine comments of ar_gee, he answers your query very well. The dialogue was a fictitious scenario, its simplicity necessitated by my desire to be brief, yet still reflect my own deep feelings and views on the issue of the USA and Iraq.
 
Top