Sincere thanks to Linda Smith who has sent me this article from Todays Australian titled "Australian anger will condemn
those in Bali [full article] (29 April 2005).
I imagine that Linda has sent this article to me as someone who is actively web-logging and campaigning for Schapelle Corby's cause. The article in today's Australian is logical, grounded and makes a great deal of sense, and some very, very imporatnt points.
I was filled with "dread" whilst reading this article and considering the possibility that I may have done or said anything to contribute to the condemnation of Schapelle. In fact, reflecting on an article such as this does cause one to reflect at the raw power of the weblog to achieve a public voice to a breadth and depth of people and places that is completely unprecedented.
I strongly agree that anger directed at Indonesia, the Indonesian people or wholesale denigration of their legal system and, in fact, any anger at all is completely counter productive. I refer to one of my earlier posts in which I cautioned against abusive, threatening or denigrating statements.
In fact, in that earlier weblog post on 16th April, in response to numerous abusive comments and denigratiing posts, I established the guidelines for this weblog site ... see below.
Lets Maintain our Moral Integrity and Principles
For the record, I think it is important to establish the policy of this weblog in relation to the content of posts.
1. This site recognises and observes the laws of Australia and other countries
2. This site is for the purpose of creating awareness, mobilising lawful discussion and exchange of views
3. This site abhors violence of any form, actual, threatened or implied
4. This site abhors vilification of any sort against any individuals, people, race, creed or organisation
5. This site prefers that comments are posted by people who provide their valid email address
Any comments posted that I believe violates these principles will either be deleted or moderated.
Personally, I do not believe that extreme expressions of negative emotion towards others, slander, violence, threats of violence, vilification or racism is at all helpful to Schapelle's cause. It only serves to show that we are stooping to a low moral level that erodes our credibility as people arguing for "principles" of fairness, truth and justice.
Excerpt from Australian article...
"Yet, despite all the publicity, the depth of public feeling and the potential to reap a political whirlwind of recrimination and base emotions, the Australian political leadership has stood united.
The Coalition, Labor and the Australian Federal Police have maintained a proper stand in the interests of Australia and the various accused.
Howard and Alexander Downer have not sought to buy into the issue and, more importantly, Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd have not given the slightest hint that they will pervert policy for a cheap headline.
But it's not just a Realpolitik issue of attempting to maintain good relations with Indonesia that is the point here. There can be fateful and even fatal consequences for the accused in an overheated and ill-informed public debate in Australia about trials overseas. As The Australian's Errol Simper so poignantly illustrated in his Media column yesterday, recalling his experience of reporting on the executions of Australians Brian Chambers and Kevin Barlow in 1986, anti-Australian sentiment in Malaysia sparked by anti-Malaysian comments in Australia didn't help their cause.
Ham-fisted and ignorant remarks about the Indonesian prosecutors, legal system and government have the potential to alter the atmospherics of the courtroom in Bali. An Australian media campaign aimed at raising sympathy for Corby or the nine accused heroin traffickers is going to have little positive impact in Indonesia.
What's more, if such campaigns are designed to maximise pressure on the Australian Government to seek clemency in the event of guilty verdicts and-or the death penalty they are only making the political task harder. Getting the Indonesian Government to commute a sentence or to activate legislation allowing prisoners to serve their terms in Australia is not made easier if the Indonesian Government faces public hostility fuelled by anti-Indonesian propaganda in Australia."
In another article from The Australian yesterday, (excerpt below), Erroll Simper talks about the effect on reporting anti-Malaysian statements on the Barlow-Chambers case in 1986
Strident press can pull noose The Australian 2th April 2005 (By Errol Simper)
"Dispatched to Kuala Lumpur in June 1986 to
cover the Chambers-Barlow case for this journal, the scribe had been in
Malaysia for several days before he began to realise how significant a
role the media might have been playing. It took several conversations
with Malaysians before he realised how seriously, how literally,
newspaper articles and - above all editorials, or leading articles -
were taken.
"Australian newspapers saw no reason why they
shouldn't describe Malaysian intentions to hang Chambers and Barlow as
barbaric. They saw no reason why they shouldn't attack, or report harsh
comments from people who chose to attack, the death penalty and the
judicial system that implemented it. In truth, there was no blatantly
obvious reason for the Australian media to pull its punches. You must
always call things the way you see them. Yet the sneaking suspicion
took hold among some observers that the more withering the attacks in
the Australian media, the more prickly Malaysian authorities might well
become. Former colonial territories don't enjoy being lectured by
people they may view as proteges of their former colonial masters."
So, we may be angry, we may be indignant and we may be passionate but we must also be pragmatic at the same time. As our intention is to truly help a "foreign prisoner", we MUST be mindful of the realities of trans-national personal feelings, as well as what we consider to be "right" and "just".
At the end of the day, it is people; human beings, that make the crucial decisions.
This is not to say however that we should forgo our right to speak out and state our truth. We have elected our Government to represent us in foreign relations and we must do everything possible to let our Government know that we do not agree with what is "going on". If we decide that we are at risk travelling to Bali, because we can see that what has happened to Schapelle Corby could happen to anyone, then that is our choice and we have the right to say that to anyone, any time.
