Thursday, June 02, 2005

Trial by Ignorance

Yeah, alright. I know what you're thinking. "Why the hell has Bodie jumped straight on to the Casbah's neat assortment of couches and upset the balance? Why doesn't he stick to his own blog?"
Well, you see, it's because I'd like to introduce you all to this young lady:



corby4

Now, unless you're a mole who lives a mile underground and does not associate with any form of media, you should know that this is Schapelle Corby. She's just been found guilty by the Indonesian courts of smuggling some 4.1kg of marijuana into Bali.
I'm not going to enter into the debate about whether she's innocent or guilty, because hell, that's not for me to decide. The legal system of Indonesia says she's guilty. Therefore, let us work on the premise that she is.

So, why am I writing about Schapelle if I'm not going to run the Save Schapelle ensign up the Bodie Mansion flagpole?
The response to the verdict of the Indonesian courts by some Australians is, quite frankly, bloody disgraceful. Let's look at some of these reactions:
  1. "After all we've done for Indonesia, with the tsunami aid and everything, you'd think they'd have the decency to let her go."
  2. "If only Schapelle had taken a bomb into Indonesia instead of drugs, she would have got [sic.] three years instead of twenty."
  3. "Australia needs to show we're angry with this by boycotting Bali and suspending our tsunami aid support."
  4. ...and then some bright spark sent a biological agent to the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra.
First off, what the hell does our support of Indonesia after the Boxing Day tsunami disaster have to do with the smuggling of drugs? Evidently, everything, according to these halfwits.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/tsunami/indonesia.cfm
"Damage includes: 1.3 million homes and buildings; 8 ports and 4 fuel depots; 85% of the water and 92% of the sanitation system; and 120 km of roads and 18 bridges. Aceh is closed to tourism and permits are needed for anyone entering the area. The World Food Program estimated that it fed 500,000 displaced or affected people in Indonesia in February - up from the January figure of 330,000. Health risks are high..."
We're talking about thousands upon thousands of people killed, and at the very least half a million people surviving solely on aid. Over a million people have lost close to everything. Australia provides over $1 billion in aid to assist Indonesia alone in the rectification of this...
...and some correspondants would have us believe it is not only morally justified, but correct, to suspend this, conceivably signing the death warrants of another few thousand people, because one convicted drug smuggler will have to spend 20 years in prison.
Come...
...off...
...it.

As for the whole bomb thing, Abu Bakr Bashir was imprisoned not for masterminding the Bali Bombings, as that great bastion of the free press, The Advertiser, reported on Saturday, but for association with an outlawed organisation. Two very different things, people...

How, incidently, is sending something deadly to the Indonesian Consulate going to help Ms Corby's appeal in any way? Dickheads, all of you who think that was clever...

corby2

The question is, would the media and the general public actually care about Ms Corby if she wasn't an attractive young girl with big boobs? Whatever happened to the so-called Bali Nine? Sure, the media poured out its heart for that 18 year old idiot among the group, who claimed "We didn't know the risks!", but none of the nine were 19 year old Gold Coast beauty students (and what the heck is that, anyway? How do you study beauty scholastically?) with a nice smile and pleasing cleavage. They haven't been in the pages of the local rag, nor on the television screens, for some weeks now.

Finally, as for this entire uproar, regardless of whether Ms Corby truly is guilty or not, the fact remains that she has been found guilty according to Indonesian law. She has been sentenced according to Indonesian law, as well she should be. I can hear the protests already, but this basically boils down to the indignation of Australians wishing to be more like our American (inbred) cousins. After all, how dare the Indonesians impose their laws on us while we're in their country!

Well, that's it from me for now. Till next time, couch fans!

Comments on "Trial by Ignorance"

 

Blogger W.C. Varones said ... (7:05 AM) : 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Blogger W.C. Varones said ... (7:06 AM) : 

You're exactly right about Schapelle Corby. This is a rare reasonable view on the case.

However, your comment about Americans at the end is off the mark. Australia is much more homogeneous both culturally and ethnically, so if anyone is "inbred," it's Australia, not America. And I don't recall a similar case of Americans throwing a fit when one of their citizens faced justice overseas. To the contrary, when vandal Michael Fay was caned and imprisoned in Singapore, it was broadly welcomed in America.

 

Blogger JP said ... (8:08 AM) : 

I agree with Bodie's points on the way some Australians reacted to the case by requesting to withdraw donations. It is a clear display of ignorance on our part.

 

Blogger bodie said ... (12:00 PM) : 

In answer to W.C. Varones, I admit that my "inbred" comment is more a result of my own prejudices against the United States than anything else (and I freely admit that there are some very nice Americans out there, probably more so than the rednecks who voted for Bush). However, I suggest you look at America's stance on the International Court, which tried, upon its inception, to indict former and current American soldiers on charges of war crimes. The US government, instead of allowing this, threatened to remove its support of the IC, rendering it more or less toothless. The IC backed down. Surely, analogous, in a larger sense, to the situation at the moment regarding Australia's reaction to Ms Corby's imprisonment.

 

Blogger W.C. Varones said ... (1:54 PM) : 

Yes, it's true that the U.S. refused to allow the International Court of Justice to try Americans.

But that's because the International Court of Justice is run by insane left-wing America-hating Europeans. Europeans have repeatedly tried to put not only American soldiers on trial, but also American elected leaders and administration officials (like Bush and Rumsfeld). In the hands of Europeans, it becomes just a political tool to attack policies they don't like, not a legitimate court to try legitimate criminal cases.

I fully agree with America's decision not to participate in such a biased court.

 

Blogger bodie said ... (3:37 PM) : 

Ah, now you're becoming subjective. Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia was an elected leader. He was indicted by the International Court, as he should have been. The man is a criminal against humanity. So, too, it can be argued (and as I am more than happy to argue) are Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush. What a very American viewpoint that anyone who disagrees with them are "insane left-wingers". Furthermore, the International Court of Justice is just that: International. The fact that it is based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, does NOT make it European-dominated. That's like saying that the United Nations is dominated by insane Fascist everyone-hating Americans, because it is based in New York.

 

Anonymous From your Kraukus buddy, Tom. said ... (3:50 PM) : 

Shapl corby is a dick. What kind of a name is shapll. If she came up to me and said "Hi, im shapl", I'd say "FUCK UP SLUT!" and leg it.

I don't care if the drugs were hers or not. The fact of the matter is that she was convicted, and all the retad yobbo scum in Australia who want to complain can suck a dong. They have no right to complain over a verdict in another country.

Now they say "lets withhold aid!". I say "Fuck up, clowns" What do innocent tsunami victims have to do with shapl corbi. What a slut. I hope she burns.

Lots of love,
Karukus.

 

Blogger W.C. Varones said ... (5:09 PM) : 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Blogger W.C. Varones said ... (5:13 PM) : 

>>So, too, it can be argued (and as I am more than happy to argue) are Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush.

That illustrates my point perfectly. Why would the U.S. submit its soldiers to politically motivated people who could lock them up for life just to make a political point?

It's well known that many Europeans are very opposed to American policies. Why would Americans submit their soldiers to the whims of politically biased courts?

P.S. Haven't you heard about the Australian Federal Police withdrawing from PNG because the Supreme Court took away their immunity? It's the same thing. So why are you bagging on America for doing the same reasonable thing Australia does?

 

Blogger Cait said ... (9:55 PM) : 

I love you Tom!



Ahh the hilarity...

 

Blogger Angus said ... (1:06 AM) : 

I agree with Caitlin. I especially like the spelling mistake with his own band. Tell it like it is Tom!

 

Anonymous funzo the court jester said ... (10:56 PM) : 

good point tom, you steam a good ham bodie, and that american fuckwit can go back to his rednecked based, warloving, gun-totering, texan country of his and smack his wife in the eye!

PS down with america, Funzo

 

Anonymous Illmo said ... (9:55 PM) : 

on the point bout the ugly australian backlash to the verdict i'd like to point out a poll on nine msn on thursday june 2 asking the question "Do you condemn the biological attack against the Indonesian embassy?" to which 23% (16000) replied no...are these people smoking some of that 4.1kg of pot? cos if so, when is the bong being passed my way.

 

post a comment