With the Australian Government having reversed its position and now indicating (with Opposition support) that it will seek an individual interim prisoner exchange agreement for Schapelle Corby if she is convicted, how will this move be justified?
Indonesian Government officials are rightly sceptical about the justice of special treatment for one individual and the precedent this will set:
Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Marty Natalegawa likened the plan to a “slippery slope”.
“We would have to be extremely careful when contemplating such a thing,” Mr Natalegawa said.
“This is like a slippery slope. If we make a special arrangement in this case, an argument might be made when other cases come up by the loved ones of people who get into trouble.”
However, he said Indonesia was open to a general prisoner transfer treaty with Australia.
But he would not even “hazard a guess” at how long such a treaty, which would need the approval of the Indonesian Parliament, would take to negotiate.
Meanwhile, international law expert at Sydney University Don Rothwell said a one-off treaty for Corby would be unprecedented.
He said there had never been a treaty struck with another country on a single case.
However, Professor Rothwell said politics might play a role in Corby’s fate and anything was possible.
Could it be the case that this decision is intended not just to appeal to public opinion in Australia but also mollify anti-Indonesian sentiment?
And as Laurie Oakes points out at Schapelle central, The Bulletin, public interest in Australia has not been stirred by the plight of two Australian citizens facing excution in Asian gaols - Nguyen Tuong Van, 24, in Singapore and Tran Van Thanh, 40, in Vietnam.
Will the Government make public appeals on their behalf? Will the Government extend the same treatment accorded to Ms Corby to the 11 other Australian citizens convicted of drug offences in Indonesian gaols? If not, why not?
In other news: The ninemsn website has a “reporter blog” on Schapelle, as well as a dedicated site for Schapelle news and updates and a a facility where you can sign up for mobile or email updates. Strangely, you’d be very hard pressed to find anything on other Australian prisoners on a google news search.
Elsewhere: David Tiley shares my concerns about the xenopobia evident in some of the reaction to the verdict. Tim Dunlop opposes the Boycott Bali campaign.
Oakes answered his own question in the Bulletin column, which you’re too polite to point out, Mark - he suggested Derryn Hinch might have been right when he said “Corby has been getting all this attention because she is young, white, pretty and has big boobs”.
Can you see red blooded patriotic Aussies starting up SaveNguyen.com or shonky Gold Coast businessmen funding their causes?
I think the whole thing is going wonderful to script at the moment. Indonesia gets to show it’s tough on drugs and not intimidated by Australia, Australia pollies get to strike concerned poses while hashing out a face-saving deal with Indonesia behind the scenes and the media gets a nice bump in eyeballs.
Then after a salutory year in a Indon nick, Schorby gets repatriated to a local lockup, paroled and taken in hand by Harry M Miller to pick up enough money to start her own travel agency specialising in surfing junkets to Asia.
It’s a win-win-win-win situation.
Fail to see the point here. What are we concerned about? The lack of attention paid to Nguyen? Then where are the posts from the blogosphere etc?
The attention Corby is getting is a combination of the reasons Hinch so elegantly describes, the open access to the media, (try putting a microphone in front of Nguyen), and the twisted schadenfreude that we are only dimly aware of that stems from the Virgin Sacrifice totem. Now that sounds ridiculous when put so baldly but we are in danger of being held in thrall here. Seriously.
The substance is that the draconian treatment of people peddling (allegedly) dope when every second bugger in this country has smoked said drug or even still does so, is truly appalling in its hypocrisy.
Media circuses come and go according to their own warped logic. It’s as random as a mad woman’s shit, but just because Corby’s story is being played by Channel 9 for all the rating they can, is of minor importance.
How do the legals work on the parole, Nabby? It ain’t gonna be that easy.
But glad to see you keepin’ you chin up!
Apparently, it’s by no means automatic that Australian parole conditions would apply. This has to be specifically negotiated into the agreement.
Fail to see the point here.
The point, wbb, is that the government are going to some length to do something for an Australian citizen who’s the subject of a media circus but not doing the same for other Australians in similar predicaments.
Mark, do you know that the government has not made reps to Vietnam? I doubt this is so, very much. It may seem to us that the gov has gone to greater lengths in this case, but in the storm of media attention this is very hard to discern. And what is the worst that you can say of the gov if they have extended themselves more than usual in this case? If they have. As far as I know the gov has provided written evidence for use by the defence team.
The gov cannot repatriate a dead man (Nguyen).
I’m sure they have made representations, wbb.
My point is twofold:
(a) The government doesn’t make the point with regard to the plight of other Australians facing execution that Australian goverment policy - by law - is adamantly opposed to execution under any circumstances. Probably because they want to downplay this - given the sort of rhetoric that came from pollies during the trials of the Bali bombers last year.
(b) My understanding is that it’s possible to have a prisoner exchange treaty with a country that has capital punishment whereby as an alternative they serve the Australian equivalent - ie life imprisonment, no parole, in Australia. The fact that Australian citizens are executed while negotiations for a general agreement proceed with other countries and special arrangements are made, or sought to be made, for Ms Corby, sits uneasily I think.
Here’s a possible essay question for a course in Comparative Political Ideologies.
“A hypothetical political ideology maintains that a young woman who:
“(a) has green eyes and pale skin;
“(b) has a facial structure and body shape which conform to dominant Anglo-Celtic cultural standards of beauty;
“(c) behaves in a manner which conforms to gender stereotypes of how the “weaker sex” should behave when in a stressful situation (e.g. weeping, fainting, etc.);
“(d) conspicuously converts to Christianity;
“is entitled to special efforts being made on her behalf by the government of her white Christian nation which would not be made on behalf of people in similar circumstances without this combination of attributes.
“This ideology further maintains that the government of a nation inhabited by brown-skinned, brown-eyed Islamic people, in which the aforesaid woman has encountered legal difficulties, should defer to the wishes of the government of its white, Christian neighbour in a manner and to an extent which it would not be expected to do for others in similar circumstances without her combination of attributes.
“Discuss the differences (if any) between this ideology and classical European fascism.”
Of course, being a devout Christian didn’t stop Lindy Chamberlain being raked over the public opinion hot coals.
What’s with the lynch-mob mentality, folks?.
For the record, my hunch is that Corby is innocent. And no, this opinion is not remotely because she is good-looking or whatever. On the contrary, I reckon she’s a white-trash scrubber who would out-annoy even her peers on the current “Big Brother”.
As far as Laurie Oakes goes (BTW, Mark, your link goes to elsewhere in The Bulletin), from memory, Nguyen Tuong Van and Tran Van Thanh were both caught trafficking/possessing heroin. Now, I’m aware that in Indonesia, but not Australia, heroin and marijuana are treated as kindred drugs under the criminal law. That’s their business.
What is unforgivable, though, is for the Indonesian/Australian man, shown on Wed’s SBS “Insight” program, to be (indirectly, from memory) denouncing Corby as a potential killer of Indonesia’s drug-susceptible youth.
Frankly, he can get f*cked. Not only has no one in medical history ever over-dosed on marijuana, even if Corby was an intentional trafficker of marijuana into Indonesia, she was plainly a financially desparate minnow, in the scheme of things. Sure, she should have known the risks, etc. But compared to Indonesia’s apparently drug-susceptible youth, risking dying through heroin overdose, *they* are far more responsible for their *own* plight than the person who sold them the fix (I’m *not* talking about the Mr Bigs here). And IMO, *they* deserve to die a f*ckload more than Corby does.
Paul, the first link goes to Oakes’ column (though the whole column is premium content) and the second to the Bully’s Schapelle fest.
Here’s the answer to the question of how the government will justify a special exchange arrangement for Ms Corby:
Two points of clarification:
The people who deserve to die a more than Corby does are (i) losers, of whatever nationality, who voluntarily stick needles of dubious street drugs into their veins (*they* know the risks) and (ii) the “Mr Bigs” who grow rich supplying such drugs, and in the process, fuel a property crime epidemic (house break-ins, windscreen-washing thugs, etc).
In this schema, Mssrs Nguyen Tuong Van and Tran Van Thanh appear to fit somewhere in the middle.
Secondly, the Indonesian/Australian man shown on the SBS “Insight” program was broadcast of Tuesday (24/5/05), is named Nuim Khaiyath. Somehow, this hysterical, moronic boomer gets a day-job guernsey at Radio Australia. The transcript for the show can be accessed here:
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight
I don’t think there’s a lynch-mob mentality on this thread, Paul. There’s a perfectly fair-minded and democratic questioning of why, if Corby is found guilty by the Indonesian justice system, her case and hers alone should attract special efforts from the Australian government and she should attract special treatment from the Indonesian authorities, when other Australian citizens in substantially similar circumstances (i.e. convicted by a foreign country’s legal system) don’t attract such treatment.
This is also a separate question from whether we should think the Indonesian judges have got it wrong if they find her guilty.
Paul I think you essay question is a good one. Why should any Australian be given special treatment when convicted of something overseas? Their laws demand their punishments and they should be carried out of their courts wish it, no questions asked. What Howard is now doing is reprehensible.
Paul W, what’s the basis for your hunch that she’s innocent? I agree with Paul N - I don’t think anyone’s got a lynch mob mentality - but questions about media influence on government actions and what prompts it are surely legitimate ones.
“I wonder is how she manages to keep her eyebrows so perfectly plucked? She‚Äôs really committed to her beauty regime.”
Such bitchiness over a question of appearance is vertiginously disproportionate when a woman is struggling for her life. But, hey, she’s called Schapelle. What are white trash for if not for us to mock.
Maybe Naomi’s flippancy was out of order, wbb, but I’m still concerned about the issues this case raises. That doesn’t preclude sympathy for Corby personally. The Channel 9 coverage just now was cringeworthy - basic take out was Schapelle is innocent, all decent true blue Aussies are with her, we feel like we know her personally, Indonesian justice is corrupt and shambolic.
It’s so bizarre - are the media going to start campaigning for a reduction in penalties for possessing recreational drugs here in Australia? Do any of us benefit from the anti-Indonesian sentiment that’s being stirred up?
Like this clown on Sydney radio:
I think Paul Norton has a point.
Kim, I haven’t watched any of the commercial media on all this so I am immune to your reaction to the media beat-up. I saw that idiot on Media Watch. Of course this type of stuff is ridiculous. It’s all based on the presumption of her innocence. Which stems from all the tawdry reasoning that has been rehashed here again.
I don’t care whether she is innocent or guilty because I am not in a position to know.
What I care about is that a person is to be sent to gaol for life for a minor drug offence. I am struggling to understand why nearly everybody is more concerned that the government may pander to populism than with the fact that we are quite happy to say well them’s the breaks if somebody gets shot or stuffed into a cell for the next 40 years.
And what has she done? Acted as gopher for rich white backpackers, fat bar-owners and de-stressing Western execs holidaying in the back blocks of Ubud.
And just because that dj you quoted is a vicious twit does not imply that the legal decision coming Corby’s way is necessarily a good one, either.
One of the judges says “I’ve been handling more than 500 drug cases but I have never acquitted one.”
I can’t see how it is racism to wonder if this man has a clue what he’s doing.
But that’s secondary for me. I am strongly opposed to draconian sentences for minor crime. Whether in Australia, Indonesia or Kabul.
But that’s my point too, wbb, like I said above - all this media furore could be used to question the logic behind the “war on drugs” - here or in Indonesia - but all we get is populism and saccharine exploitation of a poor woman by the media and pollies and sleazoid businessmen.
Yeah, I know, Kim. But this sort of stuff:
“She is getting fair treatment - they‚Äôve been very patient with her emotional collapses and her tedious self-representations. She‚Äôs not too bright and badly advised, but she ought to be a bit more patient.”
is as bad as its opposite. And it’s not just Naomi, this type of attitude is all over the blogs. The bloody so-called quality blogs!
Tedious self-representations. From the accused. In a capital case! Leaves me speechless.
Naomi can speak for herself, I guess.
Probably part of the problem is the selling point of Channel Nine’s hyped coverage - every single statement she makes or her demeanour at any given point is analysed - it’s a good argument for not televising trials.
The point was made here on one of the Corby threads - the sort of “this is an Aussie issue” thing can only be prejudicial to her chances - particularly since the Indonesian media have been taking the opposite and similarly nationalistic angle - that she’s a typical white foreigner trying to destroy their kids’ lives with drugs.
Always happy to attack the weakest point in a debate. And as Mr Big Red ZNose pointed out, it is that it is a pissweak crime. Assuming Ms Tits and Eyebrows was guilty and got away with it, what would be the outcome? More westerners than usual talking shit in Bali and a sudden run on fast food outlets?
It’s just another circus, spending the Indon and Aus taxpayers money in return for the same old story, and it’s only the media and the IT providers (”SMS your support for Schapelle now! 50 cents a minute.”) who are gonna make any real bucks out of it. You can tell Sam Chisholm’s back at the helm of 9.
I’m so disgusted by it all, I’m gonna pour m’self another calvados and chase it down with a Romeo y Julieta Robusto, lightly spiked with hash oil. Now that’s what I call a blunt.
Yeah, and wait till we start in on the Bali 9. Altho the ring-masters will run that from the other angle, I suppose. I’ll really be pushing shit uphill, then.
A blunt?
The angle on the Bali 9 was already established - no sympathy, deserve what they get. Ray Martin and the rest will call them scum with no apparent contradiction noted.
Referring to a “blunt” is my way of showing I’m hip to US inner-city black culture, whatever that is.
A blunt is a cheap cigar or cheroot (usually Dominican) hollowed out and filled up with “tea”. Popular on the mean streets ‘cos the raw tobacco helps hide that smell, and ‘cos you pose and strut with it much better than with some soggy little joint.
However I was first introduced to lightly dabbing hash oil along the length of good cigar by a US Peace Corp worker who’d spent some time in the Middle East. Damn I miss the Peace Corp. They really did win hearts and minds.
Schapelle Corby has been found guilty!
My ex used to live in DC, and was woken most mornings by his flatmate urging him to “take de blunt”. The proper blunt is a phillies blunt.
So anyone else find “Schapelle, ma belle …” whistling through their head anytime they see her? It’s just me?
Nah, Zoe, I find myself thinking of Bert Newton. Don’t ask me why.
OK, ask me, but don’t expect a coherent answer.
Kim wrote:
“Paul W, what‚Äôs the basis for your hunch that she‚Äôs innocent?”
One substantive reason and one relativist one.
Let’s assume, for the sake of the argument, that Corby did deliberately pack the stuff in her bag. With an unsophisticated mind (AFAICT), and carrying an amount of marijuana that couldn’t be remotely only be for personal (including friends and family) use, Corby’s (Australian) trafficking source and (Indonesian) distribution principal should have been easily discoverable.
The point of such an exercise being, of course, to conclusively prove that her story about the stuff being planted was bollocks. A secondary benefit — though one which the Indonesian police seem routinely* indisposed to ever follow-up — is that some “Mr Bigs” might thereby be weeded out.
Here, the Indonesian police can safely argue that the *Australian* source side of things is not on their beat. Obviously, without AFP cooperation on this front — which has indeed been conspicuously withheld, in contrast to the Bali Nine situation — there is little the Indons could do, even if they wanted to.
As far as their not even trying to identify the *Indonesian* distribution principal goes, there is much less excuse. Yes, under Indonesian law, such enquiries might not be strictly necessary, or even germane, but under any objective test of justice, this omission is deplorable, given Corby’s particular circumstances.
Relativist argument number one. Marijuana (and other drugs) can be bought on just about any street corner in Kuta. Not only do corrupt local police (and all Indonesian police are members of TNI, the Indon military) simply turn a blind eye to this trade, they actually profit by it — the drug “seller” is effectively a commission agent on the police payroll. He delivers the Westerner to the police, upon which the Westerner empties his savings account/credit card, and the police presumably supply some kickback to the “seller”. The relativist argument is that whatever Corby could possibly be guilty of, it is a lesser thing than these Kuta scum. Since the said Kuta scum actually make a living out of their activities, why don‚Äôt/didn‚Äôt the police treat Corby exactly like their countrymen, by *paying* her a half-million rupees, or whatever, and then sending her on her merry way?
Or does racism work only in one direction, so that “browns” can never be racist against “whites”?
Nic White‚Äôs question: “Why should any Australian be given special treatment when convicted of something overseas?” is thus completely the wrong way round.
* For evidence here, look at this recent exchange, re the Bali Nine:
RICHARD CARLETON: But who stood to make the profit and where is he or she? There was a critical 72-hour period between the arrival of the nine in Bali and the start of the police surveillance. But why didn’t you catch the supplier? I mean, after all, you had three or four weeks notice?
COLONEL BAMBANG SUGIARTO: Well, we don’t want to take risk. If we pay too much attention to catching the bigger fish, we might not even catch the small fish, so I didn’t want to take the risk of letting them go
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2005_05_08/story_1376.asp
(My translation of Sugiarto: “The bigger fish are part of our organisation — specifically, the payroll department — so why on earth would we be going after them?”)
Many thanks to Channel 9 for presenting the entire 3 hour verdict in Indonesian. Budget cutbacks!?!?
Go on, then Fyodor.
Sulawesi.
The Bert Newton makes sense to me. His face is currently on the back of taxis in Sydney for The Producers. He has a look involving exaggerated arched eyebrows. I think it’s the eyebrows.
Paul,
I agree with you 100% about SUGIARTO. What a load of bullshit!
Once again the incisive, rapist-like mind of Harry has nailed it: it’s the permanently surprised look [”What?!!”] conferred by either of: a) egregious eyebrow plucking (Schchappppelllle); and/or b) extensive facial remodelling (Moonface).
My first answer was close, though.
It’s 20 years, apparently.
Downer’s reaction:
Are they providing QCs and funding for the defence of the Bali 9?
How have prisoner exchanges happened in the past?
As I understand it the convicted serves part of the sentence in the foreign country and then comes home for a stay in one of our gaols.
I heard someone (sorry for the vagueness, but I was driving at the time) say they would expect Corby to serve four years at least in Indonesia before coming home.
Any ideas how long she would likely serve in Australia after coming back?
She will serve the full sentence unless they can negotiate something on equivalence for Australian parole conditions. In other words, the most likely outcome based on past practice is that she will be in gaol for twenty years.
“Are they providing QCs and funding for the defence of the Bali 9?” Well we don’t know yet, but assume they don’t and say the two cases are completely different.
Mark, would you be opposed to this type of assistance? Or merely worried that the government is being driven by Ray Martin? And if so, if Ray Martin is right, for once in his miserable career, why oppose it?
Not in the slightest, wbb, provided it’s extended to all Australian citizens in such a plight and not only those who are telegenic. I don’t begrudge Ms Corby any assistance, but I think there’s a serious issue of equity if she receives assistance that other Australians don’t.
Well she hasn’t had any out of the ordinary yet. But maybe they’ll set a precedent, and that’ll be good. Remember, there have not been too many cases like this before.
There have been a number of heroin cases but they are perceived in Australia as very different from marijuana.
So, I may easily be wrong, but I don’t believe we have anything to compare this case with and so don’t believe the gov has treated her better than it has others in her situation. For the simple reason that we hadn’t had before someone facing a firing squad for a marijuana offence.
I just saw the verdict on Lateline. Her family were obviously very upset but I wonder if their legal advisors hadn’t done them a disservice by not preparing them better for the verdict that came.
I don’t like the linkage that her brother made between Tsunami aid and her case.
Maxine McKew also made the point that was made in this post - if such help as substantial funding of her case and rounding up top QCs who will work pro bono is accorded by the government to Corby, then it ought to be similarly given to all Australians in a similar predicament.
I cut the family big time slack. I can’t imagine watching one of my sisters go through that. I would probably say and do some pretty ordinary things too. I can’t bring myself to snark about them, tho’ snarking is my favoured activity.
Trying not to be snarky, Amanda.
But I’d hate it if the sort of attitude that “they crucified Schappelle, therefore we shouldn’t help them with the Tsunami aid - ungrateful sods” takes hold.
I agree totally, cases like this bring out the worst in alot of people, and definately the media. Unfortunately that attitude (Corby/aid nexus) is already there, and it is widespread.
I’ve had a few beers which makes me in lurve with the world though.
Nice of you to share the lurve Amanda. I’m sober on a Friday night because I’m getting over a bad cold! Off to watch BB uplate…
Hayek was in favour of free trade and the rule of law.
I might go watch BB too - keeping an eye on the live feed - they are trashed again and also in lurve with the world, or at least in Gianna’s case, back in her nurse’s outfit and in lurve with the mirror.
Who won the Friday night thing?
Michelle. She took Kate into the reward room. They’re both annoyed at the moment because Geneva’s won on to Shearer. They were about to start bonking in the sauna but got sprung.
“cases like this bring out the worst in a lot of people”
Too true - and at the risk of appearing obsessive about this case, I’d evidence many of the commenters here and at many other normally decent blogs recently.
People seem to have caught the Lindy Chamberlain disease in regards to Corby. Jung would set us all to rights if only he could be with us here tonight. We have fallen under the spell of one of the ancient archetypes.
“I don‚Äôt like the linkage that her brother made between Tsunami aid and her case.” So, Kim, take home lesson, is you prefer grace under pressure. So who doesn’t. But this brother you mention failed your test. How his failing stacks up against her 20 years in gaol is unclear.
Someone somewhere else had a go at Corby’s mother for her “fish-wife” outburst in the court. If my wife remains calm and oh so well-bred dignified at my son’s trial in twenty years time, I’ll applaud her breeding and then divorce her.
There’s an analysis by a Professor of Asian Law at Melbourne Uni of the failings of the defence case here.
I think that’s unfair, wbb. I wasn’t having a go at her brother - I can understand his emotion. What worries me is the xenophobia this stirs up:
I’m inclined to agree with this comment:
I know you said you hadn’t been watching the commercial tv coverage but if you had you’d see what’s worrying me. It is really over the top - almost blatantly racist - particularly on channel 9.
All this ties in with long held Australian fears about the brown or yellow hordes from the North - same stuff that fuels anxiety and hysteria about refugees as in 2001.
Why do we find it difficult to accept that she might be guilty and that the Indonesian legal system might have delivered her due process of law?
Jesus, everyone is going NUTS over this.
I wrote this post and got hate mail. It was beautiful.
Kim - I became aware of my gross deficiency in my understanding this topic last night - so having a day working from home today I lugged the idiot box upstairs so as to be able to watch the Channel 9 coverage of the verdict, while pretending away at my day job.
Where we fail to see eye to eye here is that you are overly sensitive to the damage that can be done by the racist outpourings. I am usually very allergic to racism, but in this case I firmly resist letting that become the focus. This current racism we have seen is short-term and contrived. It is the frustration of the ineloquent. (He says!) It is not serious. It is a spike that is a mere pimple on the “structural” racism which will soldier on regardless.
I have absolutely no issues with the court’s decision.
I have always and only ever been worried about the death sentence and or lengthy imprisonment. Just because some of our brethren launch into ill-mannered and counter-productive tirades about Indonesia does not mean I will stoop to “snarky” comments about Corby’s appearance, her eye-brows, her bust, her family’s declasse demonstrativeness etc etc.
I don’t care how many Noelene travel agents rip up Bali posters in rage. I will always feel very perturbed that we lock up young people for the best part of their lives for very minor offences. And I will never mock or slight the victim or her family as a way to get revenge on Channel 9 and the more excitable cohort of talk-back callers.
I do not accuse you of very much at all. We’d agree, I know, 99% of the time about most things. I just want to emphasise that the real victim here today is Corby not Indonesia.
Fair enough, wbb, and I’m sure we are largely in agreement. I just don’t like to see racism legitimised by the media because I think it feeds the underlying structural racism. A bit like when Howard and Hanson gave everyone permission to have a go at Indigenous people and the lack of condemnation when anti-Islamic violence was at its height around s11. All this racism in the discursive realm if you like contributes to materially worse conditions over time for the people concerned and they are ghetto-ised and put back in their boxes. We see the same thing with homophobia.
Anyway, time for bed!
The real crime is that the Australian population has let the media misrepresent the truth for a few extra rating points. We need to restore the Australian media to a point where we believe again what they are reporting, knowing it to be impartial and unemotive. In light of this, I have started a petition to boycott Channel 9, please feel free to sign it if you want a return to truth and responsibility in journalism. http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Channel9Boycott
Good idea, Ben. Of course I have long had an informal boycott of Ch. 9 going because it’s mostly utter crap.
lol. Thanks Mark.
My information about Bakir wanting to run for election has been reported in the media. See my post for more information.
Everyone blog it and stuff.
Regarding the terrorist/bacteria stuff — I can see two possible motives:
(1) Some idiot Corby supporter having a brain fart
(2) Someone who is not an idiot, but doesn’t want Australia and Indonesia to have good relations.
Remember, this whole storm brewed up in the aftermath of a natural disaster which had brought the two countries closer together than ever before. Some people might feel threatened by that.
It’s even remotely possible that the bacteria were planted by someone who wanted to portray Australians as nasty, racist xenophobes.
Agreed, EP. Very worrying development no matter what the reason behind it was.
Bakirs doing it for the publcity. Hold the front page.
It all makes sense now, doesnt it Amanda.
Good one, Nic.
However, as I said on your site, the Nats are dead on the gold coast - and the revelations about Bakir’s shonky past and the fact that he hardly contributed at all to Corby’s costs don’t bode well for a political run.
Report from the Courier Mail.
Yeah thats the one. Theres an AAP one floating around all the NewsLtd sites too.
What is wrong with looking at a country and making judgements on the relative merits of their political and justice system. It seems everyone on this site pussy foots around the reality of systemic corruption that is in Indonesia (and many other countries). Is this an Asian or muslim thing - nope - it is driven by greed at the top level and through necessity by those on the bottom. Last time i visited indonesia the Chief of Police had one of the best houses on the island. it was expected that you pay your coffee money as tourist if stopped (i was visiting family). even to visit a bridge coffee money was needed.
Gosh it gets worse. 12400 people and counting think the attack on the embassy was ok.
And Andrew Bolt says we arent racist.
BJ, no-one, I think, is denying that there’s corruption in Indonesia, but it seems pretty clear that this case - with the spotlight on it the whole way through - was absolutely above board. It’s counterintuitive to think otherwise - since Corby was convicted. And I think we need also to recognise that the Indonesian A-G is making a genuine effort to remedy matters.
We should look at the mote in our own eye, too. The Qld Police Commissioner (the former Sir Terence) Lewis used to live in a huge house on top of Bardon Hill, and I don’t think there’s any doubt that there’s major systemic corruption in large parts of the law enforcement community in Australia.
I’ll have a look for the report, but a major international study a few years ago found that Australia was near the top of OECD countries in terms of corruption.
Nic, that’s really a worry.
Why the hell do Nine put these bloody polls up?
Because they are writing for an audience with an IQ of about 40, so they need nice, easy, simple questions that their readers can understand. Ill bet they archive the information and use it in articles where they can, or just structure the question so it gets the response they want - like its an article in itself.
Im guessing and being cynical, but this latest round of hysteria has lessened my respect for those working in my profession in this country.
Yeah, but Nic, there’s a serious question here - why are they stoking this further?
Good question. Why don’t some question the editors and newsmen and women who make these decisions?
“Yeah, but Nic, there‚Äôs a serious question here - why are they stoking this further?”
They want more sales. Its a nice little formula Ive theorised: Popular news + emotive writing + extensive coverage = hype and hysteria = sales = $$$ You get everyone all steamed up about an issue, they invest emotion in it and want to follow it, so you use emotive headlines and they will buy. The longer you perpetuate the hype the longer people will feel this way and therefore the more sales you will get.
Its really simple and really lame. It also leads to poor quality journalism.
Exactly Saint. But the government won’t reign the media in.. It would look too much like dictatorial interference - against free speech. The only way the media will be brought into line is if we tune out. Hey, Channel 9 is a business, with profitability. Its measure of success is its ratings. If we scare them enough that due to their appallingly unprofessional coverage of the Corby trial we will be boycotting them, we might make a difference. Hey, who knows - I might even start trusting journos, and pigs might fly…. http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Channel9Boycott
I’d say the government, in fact, has now reigned in the media via a couple of quick phone calls to the two proprietors, pointing out to them that their outlets had gone too far, and that the firm hand of leadership needed to be imposed.
(Of course Howard would not have been so inept to have blamed the proprietors for the situation that had arisen.)
wbb. I hope this is the case, but what’s to stop it happening again in future. The “firm hand of leadership” would be remembered for as long as a Big Brother finalist.
and some more…. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3529 http://www.observationdeck.org/weblogs/?p=656 having way too much fun. Have to get out of here before I hit the refresh button another time on all the blogs…
oops, wrong post - was meant to be emailing this to a friend
What a load of rubbish, Nic.
In that highly unreliable online survey, over 70% of respondents condemn the attack on the embassy, and much less than 30% “do not condemn” it. So the vast majority did in fact condemn the bombing.
And yet somehow, you manage to distort this into an implication that Australians are “racist”.
This is wrong for two reasons:
(1) Tha vast majority do condemn the attack
(2) Even if some people support the attack, that does not imply racism. It could be due to disgust for Indonesia’s justice system and government policies.
If someone were to attack the American embassy, would you say Australians are racist?
As an aside, what is the big problem with pointing out that racism and xenophobia exist is our society? Prior to knowing a thing about the Indo judicial system, I would have expressed a preference for standing trial in an Australian court over an Indonesian one. I’ve no doubt that this is to some degree due to a reflexive xenophobia on my part. BFD. If you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of petty prejudices, how can you expect to reason your way beyond them? I mean, cut the bullshit.
As an aside, what is the big problem with pointing out that racism and xenophobia exist is our society?
Because it’s mostly wild exaggerations or outright lies, designed to produce public guilt for the purpose of political manipulation.
When you smear all Australians with false claims of racism and xenophobia, you hurt the country both at home and abroad, all for the sake of that little false glow of moral smugness and superiority you feel.