True Blue

Marijuana: the facts

2007-01-01T23:49:00.000+11:00

The first thing that caught by attention when I heard about Schapelle Corby was the absurdity of a possible death sentence for a soft drug like marijuana. When I started campaigning for her I noted two surprising difficulties in attracting support for Schapelle:

1. Many Australians were unfussed by draconian penalties for anything. I’ll talk more about this in a subsequent post.
2. Many Australians saw no significant difference between marijuana and heroin.

I was astonished at the latter point. I had thought that marijuana was something that most students had tried at some stage in their youth – a rite of passage if you like – and was widely regarded as a safe way for teenagers to demonstrate some mild rebellion. Whereas heroin was regarded as a soul-stealing killer. It seems I was very wrong about people’s perceptions.

As the Schapelle support juggernaut swept along, there was a clear attempt by some political and media leaders to portray marijuana as a highly dangerous drug. We were told that the modern MJ is far more dangerous than the product we might remember from our youth. And that it was highly likely to lead to mental problems. And that it was a first step on the way to heroin addiction. That last one particularly surprised me since I know of many people who have tried MJ but nobody who has tried heroin.

I also read a number of justifications by Indonesian politicians and officials that proclaimed the need for severe sentences because drugs kill. Yet no recognition was made that marijuana doesn’t kill and Indonesia continues to include marijuana as a category one narcotic with a potential death penalty for trafficking.

So I started researching on the Internet. In summary, I found a vast body of literature proclaiming the safety of MJ, but some more recent scientific research that indicated the existence of a causal link between heavy use and mental problems.

However, in summary:

1. It does not cause brain damage.
2. It is not a gateway drug.
3. It is less dangerous than tobacco.
4. It is less addictive than coffee, and massively less addictive than alcohol, heroin or nicotine.
5. It is not substantially more potent today than in the past (early comparisons failed to recognise that older samples had lost potency over time).
6. Heavy cannabis smokers are a mere 1.5 times more likely to suffer symptoms of psychosis that non-users.
7. It does not lead to death through overdoses or AIDs.

So there you have it. MJ is a non-addictive drug that carries a small increase in risk for heavy users. So, I’m right back where I started. The draconian penalties of countries like Indonesia cannot be justified by any adverse affect caused by the drug. And innocent or guilty there is no excuse for Schapelle to still be in that cage.

Values, laws and Sheik al-Hilaly

2006-10-28T20:01:00.000+11:00

There has been much debate about values in recent times with both Howard and Beazley weighing in with their versions of the need for immigrants to adopt the values of Australians. I suggest this is nonsense. I don’t believe there is a unique set of Australian values. Rather there are beliefs that are common to most people around the world, which are reasonably approximated by the Americans respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But running in parallel with those essentially secular beliefs are religious beliefs that are not necessarily compatible with common secular beliefs and in some instances are markedly different from the values of the majority. An example is the recently controversial sermon by Sheik al-Hilaly which, for all his subsequent efforts to ‘reinterpret’ his message, essentially blamed the victims of sexual assault rather than the perpetrators if the victims were scantily clad.

But you don’t need to look at Muslims to see such incompatibility of values. There are many Christians in Australia that believe that life is sacred from the moment of conception and that any abortion is murder. There are others that believe that the only Godly response to intentional murder is capital punishment. And there are other religions that would regard eating pork or beef to be mortal sins.

The truth is that for all the shared values of people around the world, and in Australia, there are areas of passionately held differences of opinion.

My view is that we should forget all about values. What matters is that people are prepared to accept the law of the country in which they live. In some ways it is a remarkable thing that the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Australia have co-existed peacefully with a culture of bikinis, underage sex, over-indulgence in alcohol and lack of punishment for religious offences such as adultery. It is equally remarkable that Fundamentalist Christians have managed to co-exist with abortion clinics, non-observance of the Sabbath and disparagement of their God on television. What has made that peaceful coexistence possible is respect for the laws of our country, NOT shared values!

So my concern with the controversial sermon of Sheik al-Hilaly is not that he has different values to mainstream Australia. My concern is that the obvious interpretation that his faithful followers will place on his words is that if a female is scantily clad, then it is OK to break the law and commit a rape. If there isn’t a law against telling your ‘flock’ that it is OK to break the law then there damn well ought to be. Because ultimately it is our laws that make it possible for Australia’s crazy melting pot of humanity and it’s different values to continue in peace and harmony.

Schapelle - EDD and the new regulations

2006-10-18T16:15:00.000+11:00

In my previous post, I estimated that with maximum normal remissions, Schapelle Corby could be released on parole near the end of 2013. About the time that I completed that analysis, The Age published this article about new regulations that would require terrorists and Australian drug offenders to spend more years in jail with Indonesia deciding to curtail their sentence remissions.
Indonesia lengthen Jail Terms

The article makes the following points:

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has approved regulations forcing prisoners convicted of serious crimes to serve at least two-thirds of their original sentences.

They will not be eligible for regular remissions issued to other prisoners until they have served at least a third of their jail terms.

Until now, all prisoners have automatically received sentence reductions at least twice a year, which can halve their jail terms.
The new guidelines are likely to apply to convicted marijuana smuggler Schapelle Corby.

1. I think the change is wrong and have written to SBY and our PM to say so. The remission system is fair and sensible, and never more so than for long term prisoners.

2. It is not clear that the new regulations would apply to Schapelle since the article also states that the regulations will not apply to prisoners who have already received remissions (which includes Schapelle). It is also possible that that quote from the Indon Justice Minister means only that those prisoners will not lose the remissions they have already received but will not be eligible for more until one third of the original sentence has been served. Who knows.

3. Although the article indicates that the new regulations will require prisoners to serve at least two thirds of their sentence that statement is not consistent with the paragraph that follows it and in my view is an incorrect assumption by the journalist.

So, I've redone my analysis, using the same methodology as in my previous blog.

So under the new regulations, Schapelle would be released in mid 2015 just 16 months later than I had estimated previously. The reason is that although Schapelle would lose 36 months from 2007 to 2010, she gets back an additional 12 months in the first extra year of sentence. The net increase of 24 months is further reduced by the conditional release formula down to 16 months.

A bad result, no doubt. But could be worse.

Schapelle - estimated date of departure

2006-10-15T16:21:00.000+11:00

For some time I’ve been trying to work out when Schapelle might be released from prison if some sort of special deal isn’t done for her.

The reason that the answer isn’t 20 years from the date of her arrest is because of two elements of the Indonesian prison system; twice annual sentence remissions and a form of parole called conditional release.

Unfortunately there is no reliable information on the Internet about the application of these concepts. I’ve even tried translating from Indonesian sources without much luck. But I’ve put together whatever pitiful gleanings I could gather into a summary of what I think the answer would have been. I say would have been because there has been a news story indicating changes in the remissions system that might affect Schapelle – more on that in a future post – but ignoring that, my best guess is that:

Conditional release is available when well-behaved prisoners have completed two thirds of their remission reduced sentence. How that would affect a foreign prisoner such as Schapelle isn’t clear, particularly since foreign prisoners convicted of drug offences are no longer allowed to visit Indonesia. My best guess is that a reasonable lawyer would be able to have her sent home at that point.

The other sentence reducer is the remission system, whereby on each of two annual remission holidays, sentence remissions are granted to well behaved prisoners up to a month's remission for every year or partial year served to a maximum of 6 months each holiday. So:

- In the first year, 2 months max remissions (but Schapelle got 0 because she was appealing her sentence)
- In the second year, 4 months max remissions (Schapelle got 2)
...
...
- In the 6th year, and thereafter, 12 months max remissions.

It’s more complicated than that with some special remissions being available for being ‘extra good’; stuff like giving blood, helping the guards and one suspects the paying of bribes.

Anyway, ignoring the special remissions but assuming Schapelle’s behaviour is consistently excellent, this chart shows what might happen. And the spot when the two lines intercept is when I expect Schapelle to be released.

The complicating factors are the reported changes to the remission system which I’ll discuss later and the possibility of some form of clemency or a better outcome from the judicial review process.

So many guesses and assumptions, it’d drive you nuts, but my guess is end of 2013.

The Bali Nine and Their Advisors

2006-09-28T23:05:00.000+10:00

I'm shocked at the extra four death sentences for the Bali Nine. But I've been shocked for a long time. Ever since they appealed their original verdicts, in fact. Seven of them hit the jackpot in the original trial and avoided a firing squad. FOR HEROIN TRAFFICKING in INDONESIA! These were lucky, lucky people. Surely the defence lawyers had to be telling them that.

But it's worse than that. A life sentence in Indonesia is routinely reduced to a 15-year sentence after five years of good behaviour. As a result with typical remissions a life sentence probably translates to maybe 15 years in total with the possibility that at any time the President might have a sudden attack of generosity and let them out even earlier. So not only had these lucky people avoided a firing squad but their sentences were nowhere near as bad as they sounded and a successful appeal was unlikely to reduce them in practice by more than two to three years.

So an appeal was so stupid it almost qualifies as suicide.

Which raises the question: were the defence lawyers telling them that? Or did the lawyers recommend the option that would lead to a continuing supply of Australian taxpayer dollars through a succession of further appeals and reviews?

And what were Australian embassy staff telling them? I cannot believe these people would have risked their lives for so little if they had been kept properly informed.

I dunno. Maybe they did get good advice. Maybe they really were that dumb. But I can't quite believe that. But then, I’m not the kind of person to go waltzing around an Indonesian airport with heroin strapped to my legs, either.

Muslims and me

2006-09-26T12:23:00.000+10:00

On the 28th August 2006, I posted this to Yahoo 'Top Stories':

I've generally taken some pride about not being prejudiced on the basis of culture or religion. The girl at my local fish and chipper is Arabic and she's a delight. My current dentist from Afghanistan got me out of intense pain when previous dentists had failed. I have no trouble assessing Muslim job applicants on merit.

Yet last night I was sitting in a bus, saw an Arabic lad with a backpack heading in my direction and had the unworthy thought that I hoped he wasn't going to get on my bus. And that is a huge problem. Muslims can tell us that Islam is a religion of peace till the cows come home, but we know of a spate of atrocities by Muslims around the world against civilian targets. Spain, New York, Bali1, Bali2 and many others. And of course the many foiled attempts - USA, Britain, Australia, the Philippines and again many others.

Of course, it isn't fair that a religious group should be judged on the basis of a small number of psychos. But neither is it fair that we should be under constant threat of attack from Islam’s lunatic fringe.

And my perception is that the Muslims of Australia have not tried hard enough to condemn these atrocities and attempted atrocities. Any time a Muslim cleric gets TV time and shows even the faintest glimmer of understanding towards these evil people it drives another nail into the coffin of East-West multiculturalism. If they're serious about living in peace I believe the Muslims are going to have to find many more ways to show it than is expected of non-Muslims. That isn't fair. But I'm dashed if I can see any alternative.

On the 3rd of September 2006, Peter Costello stated that there was

a need for the Islamic leadership of this country to stand up and contend unequivocally that terrorism is never justified.

Then on the 8th of September 2006, Jim Schembri published a column which starts:

Should I move? I'm just sitting here, on my way to work, reading my magazine and stealing furtive glances at the legs of the young lady on other side of the aisle. Then he arrives. He's a pleasant-looking guy, young, with a Middle-Eastern complexion. I make room so he can take the seat opposite. He smiles a "thank you". I smile back. In his lap is a backpack. On his head is a beanie that reads "Australia". In his hand is a mobile.
Probably a uni student on his way to a lecture. Or an office worker. Or off to meet friends for a coffee. Or somebody posing as a normal citizen preparing to make me Australia's first suicide bombing victim.

Hmm ... interesting coincidences. Who knows? And it's no big deal. Only, I'm not even sure that my original post represents how I feel. I was just making conversation.

Schapelle who?

2006-06-06T13:03:00.000+10:00

I was going to write an article about this newspaper article and a subsequent survey, but I don't think I can add anything to this excellent blog from Michelle ...

Michelle's blog/opinions-vary.html

Kim Beazley

2006-05-24T22:41:00.000+10:00

I’m a Lefty. As such, the ALP is my natural party of choice. But in recent times I’ve been raging against Kim Beazley. The problem is that Beazley never seems to make a stand on issues that really matter to me, e.g. Tampa, War in Iraq, Scott Parkin, David Hicks, Schapelle Corby, the new terrorism laws, Mick Keelty. My fury at the Beazley-led ALP’s refusal to represent me on matters of principle has actually had me contemplating casting a vote for Herr Howard and the evil empire.

Now that doesn’t mean for a moment that I can find anything to like or support in John Goose-stepper Howard. Quite the contrary. At the moment, he’s visiting the U.S. getting fawned over by the Warmonger-In-Chief and his psychopathic acolytes. The word ‘sickening’ seems so pitifully inadequate.

But it isn’t as if my vote would be the one that deprived the ALP of taking Government. My belief is that opinion-poll-chasing lefties look shallow and unprincipled, and have no chance of winning elections; (exhibit one: the lame Democrats in the U.S.). So, I thought that perhaps my vote should send the message that if the ALP wants to be nothing but a pale version of the Liberal Party, then it will do so without my support.

But voting for Liberals and the empty values of privilege, class and money goes against everything I believe in. So, I thought I’d better check my opinions about Beazley with the facts. This is what I discovered.

War on Iraq: I was wrong. It was actually Simon Crean who turned to water on this issue. Beazley was opposed to the war without the backing of the U.N. More generally he was opposed to the policy of pre-emption.

Scott Parkin: I hate it that this peace activist could have been detained, deported and billed for the process without even being informed of the charges against him. On the other hand Beazley did obtain a briefing from ASIO, and the process has been vetted and declared sound by the Inspector-General. Personally, I think the treatment of Parkin is too outrageous to be justified by anything, but given that due process was followed (however unfair) I won’t mark Beazley too harshly on this one.

Tampa: Beazley’s failure to take Howard on when he pulled the infamous Tampa stunt was unforgivable. No excuse.

Terrorism Laws: Fascist Governments around the world have discovered that fighting terrorists is a vote winner. Yep, it seems that the voters love wars on terrorism, concentration camps and draconian legal systems to protect them from the bad guys. No matter that the risk of being hit by lighting is much greater than the risk of being a victim of terrorism. This was a great chance for Beazley to show that he is a man of principle. He flubbed it. His response to laws that even Malcolm Frazer described as unfair and unnecessary was to argue that they did not go far enough. No matter that there is nothing in them that would have prevented any of the terrorist atrocities round the world. Kim’s choice was to move further to the right than Howard.

Schapelle: After saying all the right things about Schapelle Corby while public opinion was on her side, he’s had nothing to say about her, despite the reimposition of an absurd 20-year sentence for an offence that might have got her 12 months in a reasonable system. Where’s all your support gone, Kim?

Mick Keelty: I hate Mick Keelty and the AFP with a passion for disparaging Schapelle Corby’s defence during her trial and for setting up the Bali nine for a potential death sentence. Beazley and Howard refused to condemn Keelty for either act. Inexcusable.

David Hicks: Beazley has actually said some of the right things about the appalling treatment of David Hicks, but even in this area, he’s been fairly muted in the frequency and strength of his comments.

That’ll do for the moment. In summary; not happy, but not quite as bad as I had assumed. In particular his opposition to the war deserves praise.

Obviously I’m further to the left in the political spectrum than Kim Beazley and to some extent I have to live with that. But I have long believed that the electoral problems of the left, in America and here, are largely due to a failure to define principles and then sell them.

I’m still not sure how I would vote at the moment. One bulletin board poster made the point that by voting for the Libs in protest at the ALP’s betrayal, all we are doing is pushing them further and further to the right; making them want to be like John. It’s an argument worthy of reflection. The rock or the hard place. I dunno. Perhaps though, his opposition to the Iraq war might just be enough to earn Beazley my vote.

Schapelle and the death penalty

2006-05-22T00:59:00.000+10:00

Up until the trial verdict I think it’s fair to say that Australia was concerned that Schapelle was facing a possible death sentence. Then came the anti-Schapelle backlash and a number of commentators told us that Schapelle had never really be in danger of a death sentence and that in fact her long sentence partially reflected judicial annoyance at our strident support. It was an effective tactic in reducing support for Schapelle. But I certainly believed it. After all, if experts like the Chief Editor of the Jakarta Times and ‘Indonesian expert’, Tim Lindsey were saying it, it must be true. Right?

But I’m right back where I started. I now think Schapelle was at huge risk. Here’s why:

Right from the start key Indonesian players were calling for the death penalty. Influential people like the Attorney General, the Bali Chief of Police and the Bali Chief Prosecutor were saying that an example must be set.

Despite having numerous opportunities to say it wasn’t so, and to defuse a delicate political and tourism issue, neither the judges nor SBY were even prepared to say that it was unlikely.

The Bali prosecutor and the Attorney General have gone on record to say that there is no legal difference between heroin and marijuana. The Indonesian Supreme Court has specifically confirmed that view.

The Bali Chief Prosecutor and the Attorney General both expressed disappointment with the initial 20-year sentence and petitioned appeal courts for a life sentence to be imposed. The life sentence is of course just one rung short of the death penalty, and it seems very possible to me to think that the only reason they weren’t pursuing a death sentence with similar vigour was because of the political intervention of SBY following his visit to Australia, and his promise to ensure an outcome that was “acceptable to both countries”.

The Bali Chief Prosecutor made it very clear in the early stages of the case that he was going after the death penalty. It’s hard to believe that he really changed his mind because she was “had no prior convictions and was polite in court”. In fact he challenged the “no prior convictions” at the appeal stage. It’s also worth noting that Schapelle shouted out that Winata was a liar during his testimony. So not only do the reasons seem insufficient, but there is no reason to think he actually believed them.

Bali High Court judges have now stated that they regard Schapelle’s ‘offence’ as more serious than that of the Bali Nine couriers because she was importing.

The judges and prosecutors have consistently indicated that Schapelle’s failure to admit guilt and express remorse entitles her to a greater sentence.

Bali has been facing a rapidly growing drug problem, and there have been calls from the public and from politicians for drug smugglers to be executed. A colleague told me after returning from a conference in June 2004 that he had been told by ‘an Indonesian official’ he had met that Indonesia were in a state of panic over the drug escalation and were looking to implement the Singapore solution.

So my view is now that while Schapelle was very unlucky to be found guilty, she is very lucky to have avoided a firing squad. I suspect the combination of the tsunami and our generosity, SBY’s need for Australian investment and our vocal support might be all that saved her.

Death penalty - what would it be like?

2006-05-01T00:51:00.000+10:00

There was a stage that the fear of Schapelle facing a firing squad haunted both my days and nights.

Around that time I wrote this essay for myself as an attempt to deal with the anguish I felt. In some strange way it helped.

But it also serves as a companion piece to my earlier post on this blog about the death penalty. That was what I think. This is what I feel.

********************

In two hours I am sentenced to stand before a firing squad on a lonely beach somewhere in Indonesia.

I have said goodbye to my Mum, my Dad, my brothers and sisters. I had wondered what we could find to say to each other. Would I plead with them to keep fighting, petitioning, protesting? Or perhaps talk of my fears, my terror? Or would we carefully talk all around the terror. Would we talk of good times, old friends, current affairs, some laughs perhaps, or maybe of their future plans.

Yet in the end it was simple and beautiful. There was nothing to speak of except love. Nothing to do but to hug. In the end nothing else mattered. For the first time in years it felt good to weep like a baby. If I must die, at least I will leave something behind, a residue of love in the hearts of a few special people.

'If I must die'? Then, it seems that still I do not accept it. Less than an hour to go. My lawyer has said that there is no further avenue of appeal. The President has confirmed that I must die.I do not understand how can they not extend mercy. How can they look on my face and not see my common humanity. How can the President calmly attach his signature to a document that means bullets will soon be tearing into my flesh? How can they find twelve men prepared to carefully take aim and shoot out the heart of somebody just like themselves?

Do their children ask them "what did you do at work today, Daddy?" Do they respond "I fired a bullet at a fellow human being today. I think I shot with great accuracy. It might have been my bullet that ended her life. I am proud to have done my job well."

My God! What will it be like? Blinding pain as the bullets rip into me? Minutes of unendurable agony as my mind shuts down? For ever! This is not a good train of thought. I feel the fear rolling in like fog across water.

The fear. 30 minutes. I repeat a litany I have been reciting in the so far futile search for some calm. 'Fear is the mind killer. I will face my fear. I will allow the fear to pass through me and over me. When the fear is gone only I shall remain.' It doesn't help. I am scared. So scared. I fear the night. I fear the pain. I feel sick. My heart pounds. Can't swallow. Can't breathe. My organs seem to be shutting down. Should I sleep? What for? Perhaps, so I could feel better and calmer. It's academic, anyway. How could I possibly sleep?

The fear continues to grow. The horror of extinction, not in the comfort of a hospital bed at an unknown time, surrounded by people that love me, but alone at the hands of men who will shoot me with not much more interest than a pest exterminator doing his job. The worst thing is that they will do it at a predetermined moment in time. My throat further constricts with every tick of the clock.

I feel a huge swell of rage against all these people. It helps. I must hold that anger. Do not forgive. I hate them. I hate them so much. With every cell in my body. I wish them leukaemia, brain tumours, torture, gangrene. I hope their children drown in their own swimming pools and their babies are congenitally deformed. Die screaming you filthy bastards. I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. I hate you.

No I don't. I wish I could. I wish I could retain that hatred and slowly release it over my remaining minutes, to hold back the fear. But I cannot. I love this life and I love its people. All of them. They are me and I am them. If I can't understand why they must do this to me, I can at least identify with their hopes, fears, hunger, love and yes, even their hatred. And as I love them, I love me. Strangely, I am ready. Just in time. I hear them coming.

Maybe I have been reprieved. Could it be so? Could it? Could it? Please God, please. I lied before. I'll never be ready. Help me.

Schapelle - rumours

2006-04-27T00:30:00.000+10:00

As Schapelle started to gain widespread public support, a few weirdos with motives that I cannot begin to understand, started calling radio shows or writing to message boards with rumours designed to persuade people of her guilt. Some of those rumours are listed below:

There was no need for her to take her boogie board to Bali since her sister has a surf shop in Bali.

Refutation: It’s extraordinary how these untrue rumours spread. A bloke on the John Laws show makes up a story and a week later half of Australia is basing all sorts of arguments on this ‘fact’. But anyway, it's not true. Mercedes lived and worked on the Gold Coast but took occasional trips to Bali largely because her husband is Balinese.

Where did she get the money for all those trips to Bali. I heard 30 in the last 12 months.

Refutation: More nonsense from the same John Laws caller. Schapelle has been to Bali a couple of times in the last 5 years.

I know an airline hostess that went over on the flight with Corby and said she was really nervous all the way.

Refutation: No you don’t. By the way, I know a Bali copper that told me that Customs Officer Winata is telling everybody that he once had his advances to an Aussie girl rebuffed and had been looking for revenge ever since. (Tell you what - I’ll admit I made my story up, when you do the same.)

I have heard from friends who live and work in Bali that the Indonesians suspected the Corby siblings were smuggling stuff into the country for the past 5 years but they were too smart to get caught.

Refutation: And let me guess. No doubt they were using that surf shop in Bali as a distribution point and using Schapelle's experience as a Japanese hooker to entice people into their wicked clutches, whenever she was on one of her many thousands of weekly visits to Bali. Absolute garbage!

Worth making the point that the Bali police followed this line of inquiry with diligence and came up with absolutely nothing.

I have heard that police on the Gold Coast were well aware of the Corby family’s drug-related activities.

Refutation: Quite the contrary Paul Toohey in a 25 May article in the Bulletin wrote:

If the family are drug-dealers, local cops say it is news to them. Just around the corner from Rosleigh’s home is a four-person Loganlea police outpost. They say they’ve never had reason to visit Rosleigh’s address. … “And I can tell you, when someone gets caught with drugs here, which is all the time, they’re quick to dob in their supplier.”

Apparently Schapelle worked as a hooker in Japan.

Refutation: Another unpleasant use of a half truth to disparage Schapelle. After the failure of her marriage to a Japanese man, Schapelle worked temporarily in a bar in Tokyo. There is no reputable suggestion that she worked as a hooker.

Schapelle – guilty?

2006-04-27T00:23:00.000+10:00

As I’ve previously stated in this blog, the evidence that could have conclusively proved Schapelle innocent or guilty was deliberately, and with merriment, ignored or contaminated by the Bali authorities on the night of her arrest.

There are some solid indicators of innocence. For all that there are undoubtedly two solid pieces of evidence against her. That (1) she was in possession, and (2) Bali authorities testified to a guilty reaction from Schapelle when they went to open her bag. So I am constantly amazed that so many of Schapelle’s detractors seem to be endlessly trying to come up with the 'really convincing' evidence against her. Here are some of those arguments, and their refutations:

Her defence was weak, with no real evidence, only that criminal with his hearsay evidence.

Refutation: Of course it was weak. The authorities either failed to collect, or contaminated, all the good evidence. But tell me, would you still think the defence was weak if the arrest had been properly handled, and as a result the defence had been able to show that a Brisbane baggage-handler’s print was on the cannabis bag or that the weight of the boogie board bag had increased by 4.1 kg between Brisbane and Bali.

A weight difference of 4-5 kilos on a boogie board bag would have been noticed by an innocent person.

Refutation: Worthless speculation. That is the type of thing that gets noticed by people who notice things like that. The argument is not fit for a courtroom or for intelligent argument. In any event, James did most of the carrying in Bali.

The drug parcel was almost exactly the same dimensions as the boogy board bag.

Refutation: A worthless speculative argument that would be laughed out of court, and rightly so. The drug parcel was a reasonable fit as you would expect since the smugglers had a choice of hundreds of bags. It would have also comfortably fitted in any average suitcase filled to less than than two thirds capacity. Not surprisingly, as a relatively soft parcel it partially took the shape of the boogie board bag.

The drugs were not intercepted by a third party recipient. Why wouldn’t the ‘baggage handlers have picked then up in Sydney.

Refutation: It’s only speculation on my part, but one possible reason is that the Sydney Airports were crawling with police looking to arrest the international cocaine smugglers. But there could be millions of reasons. Maybe the pickup man had a flat tire on the way to work, or a bad migraine.

Ms Corby has at various times claimed that the board had been tampered with in both Bali and in Australia. Sounds like she makes it up as she goes along.

Refutation: Ms Corby has claimed nothing of the kind. She has no idea how the drugs got in her bag. Her defence team came up with the domestic smuggling theory. It's worth pointing out that this is the exact reason that it was so difficult for Schapelle to convince the court of her innocence – because they required her to explain how the drugs got in her bag. Something which an innocent person could not possibly do.

She admitted that the bag was hers when she was arrested. How come she denies it now? Is she stupid or something?

Refutation: No, she certainly isn’t. Right from the start, and consistently thereafter, Schapelle clearly stated that the boogie board bag was hers, and the cannabis bag was not.

There are big profits to be made from importing Australian marijuana to Bali, because Australians will pay extra to by Australian-quality marijuana and would prefer to buy from an Australian so as not to be sprung by the Bali police.

Refutation: This argument comes from an article by Matthew Moore in which he cunningly compares the wholesale price in Oz with the retail price in Bali. In fact, the prices for high quality dope are very similar, probably reflecting a balance between Bali’s harsher penalties and the ready availability of lower quality dope in Bali. Not that I’m conceding for a moment that the ‘Corby’ dope was of high quality. It was never tested despite Schapelle’s documented request to the court that this be done.
The other argument is that Aussies would prefer to buy from Aussies. Good theory but Bali tourists will tell you without exception that the people trying to sell drugs are Indonesians, not Aussies. This is probably because any Aussie selling drugs would stand out like dogs’, and could expect to be arrested and facing death penalty charges within hours.

Death penalty

2006-04-24T14:01:00.000+10:00

Of all the issues I feel impassioned about, perhaps the top of the list is the death penalty, to the point that I actively attempt to avoid products from death penalty countries and have turned down speaking engagements in Singapore and Malaysia. My opposition to the death penalty is in part an instinctive abhorrence of cold-bloodedly ending somebody's life at a particular time. It is also based on the following arguments:

Mistakes cannot be fixed, and no matter how perfect the system there is always a doubt; ‘reasonable’ or not.
It is an inhumanly cruel act. And not just the act but also the years of mental torture. I cannot imagine anything as terrifying as watching the clock tick down towards your execution. I’m against torture, and that is torture!
The appeal processes involved, with any even approximately safe system, delay closure for families/friends of victims (it's not uncommon for execution to be carried out 10+ years after sentence). By contrast families/friends can move on with their lives as soon as murderers are sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.
Taking away a person's entire existence for a wrong action is massively disproportionate. Nor is it reasonable to match the penalty to the result of the criminal act, after all, we don’t do that with drink drivers, or other offenders who cause death by carelessness or negligence.
A multitude of properly-conducted studies have proved it is no more of a deterrent than long prison sentences. Many people find this hard to believe because they themselves find the death penalty far more frightening than a life sentence in prison. But the real question is this...
Are there potential criminals who would be deterred by the death penalty who are not deterred by long prison sentences.
Reputable statistical studies say ‘no’.
Quite apart from the lack of statistical support for the deterrence factor, I am philosophically opposed to this as a justification for the death penalty. Implicit in the deterrence argument is the idea that it is reasonable to give a criminal a greater penalty than he would otherwise deserve in order to achieve a social objective. This idea is based on the profoundly unethical position that the end justifies the means. “We will murder, torture, dehumanize, whatever it takes to defeat the forces of darkness. Thank God, we’re not like them.”
Debate over potential death sentences and potential executions can inflame, stress and traumatise whole communities, and I can't see how an angry community can possibly be a safer community. I was in Washington at the time of the sniper trials and the level of rage in the community was scary, and in my view very much due to death penalty deliberations. I remember thinking that I’d rather not share a pub or a road with people this angry.
Keeping murderers alive sends an important message to the community about the value you place on human lives. And that does make the community safer.How can I tell my kids that murder is the unthinkable when the State does it to people they judge to be ‘bad’.
The stress and trauma for the people involved in the sentencing and carrying out of executions is an unreasonable and unhealthy burden for them to carry.
The existence of the death penalty tends to distort the justice process. People are less likely to plead guilty and jurors less likely to convict.

Me 'n Dubby

2006-04-19T15:02:00.000+10:00

I was in Washington D.C. last week, and I figured that while I was there, I’d try out a few of the local brews, so naturally I went and found myself a bar.

As it turned out I was in excellent drinking form and was representing Oz with great distinction, when who should walk in but President GW Bush, himself. The two of us hit it off and I finished up chatting to the man, over a bourbon or two.

All that talk proved to be thirsty work and when I got back to the hotel, the room was spinning, somethin’ shocking, but I figured that this was a pretty significant moment in my life story, so I should scribble down a record of our conversation, as best as I could remember.

Me: Hey, Mr President. D’you wanna take a pew next to an Aussie and wrap your paw around a brew or two.

Dubby: Yeah, why not. I count your country as one of our greatest friends. You’ll sure as hell never hear a harsh word from me about the land of Mozart. But hey, call me Dubya and make it a bourbon, thanks.

Me: OK, I’m Truey. Glad to meet you. You don’t mind being called Dubya?

Dubby: Heayell no! Not since Dickie explained to me that Dubya was a famous Indian warrior.

Me: Thanks Dubya. So tell me, I’ve always wondered why did you do to war against Afghanistan?

Dubby: Geez dude. You musta started on the bourbons before me. I think you’ll find that the war was actually with Iraq. Here, look I’ll show you. Imagine this peanut bowl is Africa … well this little pool of slopped bourbon on the side here is the island of Afghanistan.

Me: But wasn’t it your mob that took on the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dubby: Geez, ya got me thinkin’ now. Hey! You are so right. Two wars, eh. No wonder I get confused. But hold on. It’s all coming back to me now. Wasn’t it something about getting rid of those hideous burkhas? Ha ha, look at your face, Truey. I’m not talking about the people, you goose. I’m talking about their fashion sense.

Me: I thought maybe it was something to do with that 9/11 thing.

Dubby: Oh yeah, that too – I remember. After 9/11 we thought we needed to invade somewhere and preferably a country without modern weapons or significant allies. Some of our people were gunning for New Zealand, but we couldn’t find it on the map. Yeah … interesting … I hope we won. Wouldn’t be a good look losing to that mob. Hey Truey, I think our glasses are dying of thirst. Let me get this round.

Me: Yeah, so how’s that Iraq thing going, anyway. I keep reading stuff like it’s becoming another Vietnam.

Dubby: Naah. Iraq and Vietnam are completely different; one is long and skinny and the other is sort of chunky, although I forget which is which.

Me: I think they were talking about getting your boys out of Iraq, y’know, your exit strategy.

Dubby: It’s already done! We picked ‘em up in helicopters from the rooftops of Saigon and flew ‘em home.

Me: We might be getting our wires crossed here, Dubby. I’ was thinking about the exit strategy for Iraq, not Vietnam.

Dubby: Surely we don’t still have soldiers in Iraq?

Me: You sure do.

Dubby: Heads are gonna roll when I get back to the white house. I’ll have a couple of apache helicopters sent to pick up our boys, immediately.

Me: There are actually 140,000 American troops over there.

Dubby: Whoa! That is going to be difficult. I just hope there’s enough roof space in Saigon to pick ‘em all up. But this is getting to be a dry argument … your shout, I think.

Me: Umm, Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City and it’s in Vietnam. But, I was actually wondering about your exit strategy for Iraq.

Dubby: Oh good. I was wondering when you were going to ask me about Iraq. Well, I really don’t understand what all the fuss is about. I managed it OK. Went to Iraq, served some turkey, hopped on a plane and took off home. That’s all there was to it.

Me: From which rooftop?

Dubby: Now don’t be like that, Truey; I know you’re trying to get me confused between Iraq and Vietnam, but it’s not going to work. Hey, two more of those, barman.

Me: Sorry mate. Must admit things are getting a bit woozy in here. So what did you think about all those photos of abuse and humiliation of prisoners in Iraq?

Dubby: *laughs* I don’t know what all the fuss was about. That thing with the leash and that fella balancing on the box, with the hood and the wires strapped to him; those were routine punishments in my family for years. Ha ha! It’s all right, Truey, I’m only joking. Had you going there though, didn’t I? But seriously, I think some of those things were a bit over the top. We need to remember that not everybody shares our sense of humour. Here get yourself on the outside of another of these.

Me: Dubby, While I’ve got you here, I’m really curious about the missing WMD.

Dubby: I’m gonna level with you, Truey. I’ve never ever understood what WMD stands for.

Me: Weapons of mass destruction.

Dubby: Oh right. You mean nukes. Darn it! Darn it! Darn it again! I just wish I’d known that was what they were all talking about. We’ve got thousands of ‘em, and I don’t think any are missing at all. Hell, I’ve only got to push a button on my desk and I can send ‘em all whooshing up in the sky, anytime I want.

Me: You’re not thinking of doing that are you, Dub?

Dubby: I’m telling you if you don’t get round to your next shout pretty soon, I’m gonna point ‘em at Austria, and boom!

We had a few more but things were getting a bit too hazy to remember clearly. Real good bloke though. Lots of laughs and this engaging capacity not to take anything seriously. How can you not like a fella like that.

David Hicks

2006-04-17T20:02:00.000+10:00

In my last post about Schapelle, I talked about other terrible injustices around the world. One of the greatest is surely the appalling Military Commissions set up by George W Bush to try terrorists, and in particular the treatment of Australian, David Hicks.

David Hicks is now in his fifth year in Guantanamo Bay as a prisoner of the US Army. David is purportedly facing charges of attempted murder, aiding the enemy and conspiracy. It all sounds pretty serious and is based on his being with the Taliban, purportedly fighting against allied soldiers.

Only, it was actually the other way round. David Hicks was having a boys-own-adventure with the Taliban, a legit army that were not involved in any war with anybody. Then all of a sudden George W Bush and John Howard declared war on Afghanistan and his comrades. It's far from clear that David Hicks did any fighting anyway. He was caught by the Northern Alliance while escaping to Pakistan.

His other fault was apparently to attend an Al Quada training camp. But bear in mind that at that stage there had been no 9/11 atrocity and that attending the camps did not have the same connotations it does now.

My view is that there is at least a good chance he is not guilty of any crime but that he has no chance of acquittal by a military commission where the U.S Army serves as arresting officer, prosecutor, defence, judge and jury, and where there are no rules of evidence. That bit about ‘no rules of evidence’ takes on additional weight when you take into account the likelihood that Hicks, like other prisoners, was tortured to obtain evidence against him.

I also think that having kept Hicks incarcerated for 5 years it is likely that the US Army would feel that an acquittal would be just too embarrassing to contemplate.

It’s not just my view that the military commissions are unfair. The British Government wouldn’t allow any of their citizens to be tried by this unfair system and successfully demanded their repatriation back to Britain. Nor would the Americans allow any of their citizens to front the commissions. Former High Court judge Mary Gaudron has also been critical of the military commission process, as well as the ADF's senior military counsel, Captain Paul Willee and three US prosecutors who quit the commission process, claiming it is unfair.

I think we'll probably find out one day, that our Government's unwavering and passionate support for the military commissions is a secret codicil to the free trade agreement with the USA or is a payback for not making a fuss about the AWB's activities in Iraq. Or something like that.

And I for one get angry when the Government abandons an individual for the greater economic good of us all. I find it all too easy to imagine myself, a family member or a friend in the same situation.

Schapelle - why should we care?

2006-04-13T13:07:00.000+10:00

In a previous post, I talked about some of the reasons why I believe Schapelle Corby has been treated unfairly (unfair legal process, unreasonable penalty, may be innocent). Today I’d like to discuss one of the most difficult questions for Schapellites like myself to answer. With so many other Aussies in trouble round the world, African children being boiled alive, millions of people starving in poverty, political activists disappearing in the night, glaciers melting, species on the edge of extinction, etc, etc why make a fuss about Schapelle.

1. I don’t think we get a choice about what we’re going to care about. A million influences from the sandpit through to now determine that and we’ll never even know what most of them are. So I’m not going to tell you what to care about, and don’t you tell me. Let’s face it, your choices about charities to support, or items of litter to pick up, are probably impossible to justify as well. So you go ahead and save the whales, campaign against the new IR laws and donate to starving African children and I’ll worry about orangutans, the death penalty and Schapelle. And we’ll all be happy. And we’ll all be right.

2. I contend that it is only from caring about individuals that we can really care about problems affecting large groups of people. The Port Arthur massacre had, and continues to have a profound affect on many people, largely because of the then focus on the Mikac family. Without that I suggest there would still be loonies all over Oz with semi-automatic weapons capable of killing 30 people in a few seconds. Similarly the tsunami roused Australians to donate extraordinary sums of money because of the media’s skill in personalizing the disaster. And I have no doubt that my support for Schapelle has made me less self-centred and more caring towards people in trouble anywhere.

3. These people are worth it:

- Schapelle is worth it. She’s demonstrated a great sense of humour (“Bali is the worst holiday of my life”), courage under fire (who can forget her dignity and guts on the day of the verdict), racial tolerance (married a Japanese man, loves the people of Bali) and complete lack of vindictiveness (public statement against boycotting Bali).

- Her sister Mercedes is also worth it. How many people would be prepared to relocate to Bali for as long as it takes and visit their sister in prison, daily.

- Her mum is also worth it. Sure, she’s rough and tough, but she’s also fiercely loyal to her family, has a heart of gold and is apparently unstoppable.

Have I convinced you? Probably not. And that’s OK, too.

Female predators?

2006-04-08T02:00:00.000+10:00

Recently there has been community outrage expressed at the decision not to jail music teacher Bridget Mary Nolan, 25, for having sex with her 15-year-old student. She had faced a maximum seven years' imprisonment for each of three convictions but instead received a suspended sentence. The judge said Nolan's sacking as a teacher, and the considerable media publicity given to her case, had already served as considerable punishment.

This followed a number of sex offences against young students by female teachers, in recent years, including:

Sarah Jayne Vercoe who in April 2005 engaged in improper sexual conduct with a number of boys aged between 14 and 16 years, and received a sentence of four years with a minimum period of two years.

Karen Louise Ellis who was convicted of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a grade 10 student at her school and was eventually sentenced to 2 years and 8 months in prison, with a minimum of 6 months to be served. This was despite the public protestations of the student that he had found her attractive and gone after her, and that he was unaffected by the relationship.

Heidi Choat who was convicted in 1999 of maintaining a sexual relationship with a 12 year old boy who was one of her pupils. The boy said that Choat had never forced him to have sex with her, but he sometimes consented because he feared she would become "grumpy" with him. Choat was sentenced to two years in prison, with a minimum period to be served of nine months.

I was surprised to find, on message boards, considerable anger towards these female teachers, for example:

“I believe that the teacher should have been gaoled. The teacher has broken a level of trust and the boys parents are mortified. The law should be for the protection of all. The boys parents must feel betrayed by the legal system.”

“I think the teacher should have had the book thrown at her (pardon the pun). it's absolutely no different than a male teacher having sex with a student. It all boils down to the teacher betraying a position of trust, and whether or not the other party was consensual has absolutely nothing to do with it.”

”I am a feminist: that means that I believe that all human beings should have a fair go.If they abuse that trust then they know the penalties. Jail the female teacher!”

“Absolutly tragic...... what this woman has done to this child ...... for her to get off the charge free to do her crime again.... unimaginable........ she should be desexed so she can never do this to anyone elses child!”

I must admit to being gob smacked by all this rage. As I recall it, during my high school years, my friends and I thought of little else other than losing our virginity, and attractive female teachers were a fantasy staple.

I can understand that from the parents point of view there has been a significant breach of trust, and I can understand that fines and termination of employment are reasonable responses. But jail is ridiculous. You can't sexually abuse males. They are genetically designed to have sex as often as possible with as many different women as possible. Survival of the species depends on it.

Seriously, where's the victim? Some kid who's got himself years of bragging rights over his mates. I think not! Surely we need to take into account the damage or potential damage to the victims. And for people to compare the female teacher’s behaviour with predatory men, real paedophiles, is a terrible insult to the victims of these men. It is PC bullsh-- of the highest order.

The last word goes to a joke I found and enjoyed on the Internet. A young boy comes home from school bragging about having had sex with a teacher. His proud father tells him to come over to the sofa and tell him about it... and the boy says, "I can't dad - it still hurts when I sit down."

Schapelle - innocent?

2006-04-01T00:17:00.000+11:00

In my previous post I stated that I support Schapelle because (1) she didn’t get a fair trial, because (2) the sentence she received was outrageous even if she were guilty and because (3) she may be innocent. I then went on to discuss some of the reasons that I believe Schapelle's trial was not fair.

In this post, I'm going to have a look at the controversial topic of innocence. I say controversial, because as Schapelle's detractors like to point out to us none of us really know whether she is guilty of drug smuggling or not. They then go on to point out that there is an obvious prima facie case against her, and that she was unable to provide any worthwhile evidence of innocence.

In my last post I pointed out that Schapelle had no chance to provide such evidence because of the mishandling by the authorities of the only evidence that could have convincingly cleared her. Nonetheless, I don't want to completely ignore the question of guilt vs. innocence either. But bear in mind that without that evidence we and the court are looking at a badly distorted picture.

In my opinion, it is reasonably likely that Schapelle is innocent, based on the following indicators:

1. From the night of her arrest, Schapelle was desperate to have her bags fingerprinted, her luggage weighed for comparison with check-in weights and video of her arrest introduced to refute the 'guilty reaction' testimony of the Customs Officer. If she were in fact guilty, this evidence would have convincingly demonstrated her guilt, yet she showed no hesitation at any stage in asking for the evidence.

2. One parking ticket in 27 years entitles her to benefit of the doubt. As criminologist Paul Wilson siad in court, she doesn't fit the profile of a drug smuggler.

3. My own instinctive reaction to her denials was to believe her. Various experts in body language have agreed with me. More importantly, the Australian public's reaction to her testimony was to overwhelmingly believe her. Various legal experts keep trying to tell us that she would have been found guilty in Oz as well. Absolute bulldust! 92% of Australians believed her testimony. Where were they going to find a jury to convict her?

4. The crime makes no sense. Prices are similar in Sydney to those in Bali but obviously the penalties are very different. Yes, I am aware of the Matthew Moore article that says otherwise. I am also aware that he has cunningly compared retail prices in Bali with wholesale prices in Sydney to create a false impression that there are excess profits to be made in Bali. Absolute rubbish. Which is why nobody else has ever been caught smuggling marijuana from Oz to Bali. It doesn't happen because it doesn't make sense. By the way, I've got to know Schapelle well enough to know that although she is not particularly well educated, she is genuinely smart. Far too smart to take on the death penalty for nothing.

5. There is a photo of Schapelle with her travelling companions, taken shortly before they left Brisbane. How anybody could think the relaxed smiling girl in that photo is about to play Russian roulette is beyond me. The Schapelle we saw in the trial is definitely no poker player.

6. Where is the distribution network? She was hardly going to sell 4.1 kg of marijuana herself during a two-week holiday. Yet it seems the Bali police, despite early bluster they would find her associates, have actually found nothing.

7. I have serious doubts about the role of the Bali police in all this. Despite regular requests from Schapelle and her lawyers (ignore Mick Keelty's comments on this topic - they aren't true) the Bali authorities have refused to test the marijuana to determine source or quality. Am I the only one that finds this hard to believe. They've stopped a courier with a large bag of marijuana yet they don't want to know where it came from. Interestingly, they also didn't want to know whether Schapelle's companions might have had drugs in their bags. I don't like conspiracy theories and I don't want to push this too far. But something ain't right about this.

Enough. There has to at least be substantial doubt in my book. In a subsequent post I will look at some of the popular arguments people use to convince themselves of her guilt. But not today.

Schapelle - fair trial?

2006-03-25T05:28:00.000+11:00

These days, it isn't fashionable to be a Schapelle Corby supporter.

People are sick of it. Or she must be guilty because her brother James did something stupid. And her Dad's former next-door neighbour is facing marijuana charges. And anyway there are worse things happening in the world so it's time to move on.

I'm going to do a number of posts over time to outline my views about some of this stuff, but let's start with the question of why I became a Schapelle supporter in the first place.

I guess there are two dimensions to that question:

(1) Why care about her at all?

(2) In a world of appalling natural disasters, African children being boiled alive, millions of people starving in poverty, political activists disappearing in the night, glaciers melting and species on the edge of extinction why care about Schapelle in particular. A valid question, but I'll talk about that some other day.

I support Schapelle because she didn’t get a fair trial, because the sentence she received was outrageous even if she were guilty and because she may be innocent.

But in a single post, I’ve only got space to address the ‘fair trial’ aspect. I’ll talk about the other stuff later.

My concern with the trial is that it failed to redress the appalling treatment of evidence by the arresting authorities. On the night of her arrest, Schapelle asked for all of the bags to be weighed for which she was holding a luggage tag. The authorities laughed at her request and refused to do it. She also asked that the authorities stop handling the bag of marijuana so as not to contaminate fingerprint evidence. Again the only response was laughter. In a capital case, they laughed at her!

The courts and many commentators have made light of this. They have said that the evidence against Schapelle was strong enough that there was no need to gather further evidence. Yet I contend that the evidence they allowed to be contaminated or failed to collect was the only evidence capable of clearing her. Detractors seem to be fond of pointing out that she failed to provide evidence to support her claims of innocence. Yet clearly, she has been denied the possibility of doing so by the shonky handling of critical evidence by the Indonesians.

And that evidence really did have the capacity to lead to a not guilty verdict. We know that the weight of luggage for which she held tags was 65kg at check-in at Brisbane airport. If the weight in Bali had been 69.1kg, she would have been enjoying the rest of her holiday within a few days.

In the case of the fingerprint evidence, detractors are quick to claim that the absence of Schapelle's prints would have proved nothing. And they're right. But the presence of somebody else's prints, particularly those of a known criminal, a Bali Customs Officer or an Australian baggage handler, would have at least given her a good chance at trial. We'll never know!

In my view, the only fair redress, for what was a blatant disregard for her legal rights, was for the trial judges to have refused to admit the cannabis bag as evidence. Yet the trial judgment talks of the defence ‘making much of small things’. Hardly! The only evidence that could reasonably have led to her being found not guilty was deliberately contaminated or not collected. That is a very big thing.

Hi y'all

2006-03-21T23:15:00.000+11:00

Hi y'all. I'm True Blue when I'm on the Internet. Or sometimes true_blue or Truest_Blue depending on whether somebody else used my name first. I guess it's not a terribly original name but it seems appropriate being a passionate Aussie and a proud Carlton Football Club supporter.

I'm not sure how this is going to go and whether or not I'll have much to say. I suspect that depends how busy I am at work. Right now things are a bit frantic so I'll keep this short.

I'm pretty much a lefty. I tend to side with the Schapelle Corbys, David Hickses and Bob Brown's of the world. I deplore Kim Beazley's never-ending attempts to move further to the right than Herr Howard. And I cannot believe that any decent human being can support the death penalty for anything.

But let's leave it there or I'll have nothing left to say in future.

Cheers.