Skip Navigation

I was really shocked by this...

Travel Forums Off Topic I was really shocked by this...

Page

Last Post

21. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

Quoting CupCake

There is another Thread in the forums on this subject....http://www.travellerspoint.com/forum.cfm?thread=11764

Meant to post this link (to give easy acces to all 3 forums discussing this situation):

http://www.travellerspoint.com/forum.cfm?thread=11279&start=1

22. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

How's this for a justice system? Or better yet what does it say about the priorities in Indonesia?

Schapelle Corby gets 20 years for supposedly smuggling marihuana.

The "mastermind" cleric who was planned and was responsible for the "Bali bombing" which killed over 200 people got 3 years.

What's wrong with this picture?

Also the inept customs officals in Denpensar FORGOT to even fingerprint the bags containing the marihuana! Now even if you're not that well trained, or that smart, just from watching TV you'd think they'd have enough sense to have fingerprinted the evidence. Oh yea, and the video surveillance of the customs area wasn't working that day .

Just because of the inequality of the justice. 20 years for marihuana and 3 years for killing 200 people, I hope the Australians do organize a travel boycot to Indonesia. There are plenty of other very nice places in the World to see.

23. Posted by Peter (Admin 5808 posts) 11y

Yeah, fair point. That was an incredibly lenient sentence in the Bali bombing case. The problem as I understand it is that he was not convicted of 'masterminding' the explosion - he was convicted of conspiracy. See this article. Basically, it seems to me the only thing they could pin on him was a blessing he gave Amrozi. Something which I don't think they could even prove. In fact, I'm not sure what facts they actually have to support the case against him at all. Just because something is widely believed by the public, doesn't mean the court can sentence someone. Think of OJ Simpson. And don't forget that Amrozi, who the court actually had a good case against is now on Death Row.

A lot of Australians have stopped giving money to the Tsunami Appeals because of this now though and to be honest, that disgusts me. I don't think we have a right to interfere with other country's judicial systems if it has been done in a fair way. It's one of the few times I agree with Australia's Foreign Minister. Don't forget, she can still appeal now and follow the proper legal path. I think the issue with Schapelle's case is more that people believe so strongly in her innocence. Unfortunately her defense hasn't been able to prove that and it seems the judge thinks it is a case of 'guilty till proven innocent'. There have been enough other cases of Australians receiving the death penalty for drug smuggling that have gone largely unnoticed.

And if we're to care so much about judicial systems, then we should also consider the recent cases of Australians being locked up and tortured without any charges laid against them by err .. the US. One was released a few months ago after a couple of years of torture in Guantanamo Bay when they realised they couldn't pin anything on him at all. And another Australian is still there. Who knows how long for?

I'm just saying.. who are we to decide such things (boycotting or not) when all we have is the media to rely on for their 'expert' analysis? .. ha! Sorry, but all they care about is a good story and they're happy for any controversy. Do you know they had a televised event here discussing the Schapelle case, where the people in the audience were tested to see whether they thought she was guilty? And then that was seen as some sort of proof of her innocence! I've never encountered such blatant exploitation!

I don't know whether she is guilty or not, but I'm happy to let the Indonesian court decide and let her lawyers take care of her defence.

24. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

I agree with all that you say about letting countries take care of there own legal system. And agree that other countries have no right to interfere. However, boycotting and therefore causing some economic hardship, is a form of PASSIVE, legitimate protest. Of course, living in Australia, you are certainly exposed to way more of the "Schapelle case" and are probably better informed, than we here in the US. Here it gets less than a minute mention on the news (but because she's an attractive, young girl it captures people's attention).

Read the article you linked to, doesn't seem as though they really had any evidence against the "cleric," oh well. It was actually an interview with an "Australian" reporter (the media you mention)that I watched who pointed out the "unequal justice."

25. Posted by Peter (Admin 5808 posts) 11y

Quoting Travel100

However, boycotting and therefore causing some economic hardship, is a form of PASSIVE, legitimate protest.

Yes, very true. My point I suppose is that we need to be careful what we're protesting against and be sure we actually know what we're talking about.

There are things that I would gladly boycott for; Australia's inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, Australia's refusal to abide by maritime law in the case of East Timorese oil fields, Japanese whaling, Sudan's genocide and so on. These are things that I think are far more obviously unjust than what is going on in Schapelle's case. How to send a clear message through individual boycotting is very tricky though.. I personally think healthy discussions with people you know are actually more effective as something an individual can achieve. But I can see a case for boycotting.

In Schapelle's case, boycotting feels very much like bribery.

By the way, almost everyone in Australia does think she is innocent, including myself. But that's not the point. The point is that we, as the general public, are in no position to act as a jury in such things.

26. Posted by Peter (Admin 5808 posts) 11y

Oh, and yes, I have seen the same reports from Australians pointing out the unequal justice. I think The Guardian's report presents a fairer picture.

27. Posted by Peter (Admin 5808 posts) 11y

Just thinking about Sudan got me all riled up. Here's an interesting article about Canada's involement. This is one situation where I really would like to see some outside intervention.. it really is depressing.

28. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

Yea, you actually make a very good distinction about using a "boycott" type approach. If you boycott a country because of a broad policy like "their whaling practices", "treatment of animals", "apartheid" or whatever, you basically give the country the chance to make changes in their policies. In this particular case, the only result that would end a "so called boycott" would be her release, and then that does seem like a different situation (sort of bribery, let her go or else you will lose lots of money).

Oh well, by the way, the boycott wasn't my idea, it's just that the Australian reporter I was watching got me kind of worked up. I do really feel sorry for this girl and her family.

29. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

Quoting Peter

Just thinking about Sudan got me all riled up. Here's an interesting article about Canada's involement. This is one situation where I really would like to see some outside intervention.. it really is depressing.

I was just calming down, and now you're getting all riled up . I'll check out the link now. Along similar lines, today at the video store I almost rented "Hotel Rwanda", have you seen that movie yet?

30. Posted by Travel100 (Travel Guru 1556 posts) 11y

By the way, you've gotta be one of the few people in the World who reads the "Sudan Tribune" Anyway, gonna read it now. I do Know enough about it already to know it's a really horrible situation over there.