What is it with Corby supporters?

We should also not forget that in several countries even non-prisoners live in conditions similar or worse than Corby. They would happily swap their places with prisoners in Western or even Indonesian jails. A prison transfer treaty, on the other hand, is defensible, not because of inhumane prison conditions but on the grounds of rehabilitative justice.

Finally, is the Corby’s case inviting wider public outrage because we are talking about Indonesia and not, say, the US? It is doubtful if similar unrest or bullying, diplomatic or otherwise, would have been visible had Corby been tried by the “supposedly fair” US courts. The response of Australia and Australians generally to the non-trial of Hicks and Habib lends support to this possibility. In an increasingly interdependent world, the sooner we learn to respect “all” countries, the better.

Media

Apart from fuelling the misplaced apprehensions of Corby’s supporters or publishing sensational stories, the Australian media has also indulged in unethical profiteering. For example, other than earning dollars and a higher rating for Channel Nine, what significant purpose was served by finding Corby “innocent in a TV program”? The same could be said of both Channel Nine and Channel Seven deciding to telecast a live coverage of the verdict.

One could also point to the publication of inadequately verified comments or unbalanced reports. For example, by quoting one of Corby’s lawyers, it was suggested that the publication of the criminal records of some of Corby’s family members would damage her case.

In my view, legally speaking, this disclosure is as irrelevant as the recent letter sent by the Australian Government indicating some baggage handlers, who were on duty when Corby boarded her flight to Bali, might be involved in drug trafficking. Neither of these prove conclusively what they purport to suggest. One cannot prove Corby to be a drug trafficker on the basis that some of her family members were convicted for similar wrongs in the past. Likewise, the mere presence of some baggage handlers who are linked to drug trafficking on duty on October 8, 2004 does not prove conclusively they planted the drug in Corby’s bag.

Certainly Corby’s case has received excessive prominence and publicity partly because she is a woman facing a harsh sentence. Every day thousands of innocent and destitute human beings are receiving little or no public sympathy and media attention. Seemingly, some “untold” stories are not meant to be told!

Government

Finally, a small note on the response of Australian Government to Corby’s case. The Australian Prime Minister, perhaps rightly, “feel(s) for the girl”, but unfortunately he does not feel enough for, say, Hicks, Habib, Cornelia Rau, detained children and women, innocent dying Iraqis, or Aboriginals. Why is it so? Could it be because a feeling for “others” might annoy (powerful) strategic partners, or because they could demand the adoption of a more compassionate and humane policy towards refugees?

In sum, I have full sympathy with Corby, and for that matter with any other innocent victim placed in a similar situation, but not on terms which reject the rule of law in order to promote it.