Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
*sigh*
We catch them red-handed trespassing onto our sovereign land... bugger it, it's not even worth getting into.
|
Despite the fact that the refugees cannot, by definition "trespass onto ... sovereign land", Australia is
obliged under International Law to handle their cases on a timely basis and
without mandatory detention. But let's not get tangled up in legal niceties, eh?
Quote:
|
I'm just furious she was tried under an ancient colonial dutch legal system that allows one man's opinion of an event to ruin, and possibly end, a young woman's life regardless of her nationality.
|
I don't know where to start refuting this mishmash of disinformation or misunderstanding of the trial and European (or Continental) legal systems. First of all, it's not "ancient"; second of all, it's not Dutch, but "European" (the only link to the Netherlands being that Indonesia was once a 'Dutch' colony); third of all, you will find that
more countries use this legal system (usually overseen by a tribunal of 3 or more judges) than the Anglo-Saxon system, evolved from the British "trial by a jury of peers"; fourth of all, it has nothing to do with "one man's opinion" of an event ruining a young person's life; fifth of all, the circumstantial evidence concerning baggage handlers was irrelevant to the trial and would not have been admitted in an Australian trial; sixth of all, the Indonesians actually bent over backwards by admitting the evidence of John Ford and reading the letter from the Australian government (a blatant attempt to influence the Indonesian legal system and sovereignty); seventh of all, the fact that the Australian Police Commissioner himself stated his opinion that the circumstantial evidence was of no legal weight; eighth of all the fact that the Australian PM himself has accepted the verdict and asked Australians to do the same...
...and there I'll leave it.
Quote:
|
The way they can pick and choose which evidence they use is ridiculous,
|
Nonesense. The Indonesian court admitted more evidence for the defence than an equivalent Australian court would have.
The
basis of the legal crime, and the fundamental burden of proof, could be debated, but that's an entirely different matter.
Quote:
|
and for once our government has really made me angry by turning a blind eye because she came from one of our airports.
|
I don't think you can accuse the Australian government of turning a blind eye. They just haven't, for once, jumped in line with where the wind was blowing and actually did the right thing; sit back and wait for the Indonesian justice system to run its course.
Quote:
|
I say boycott. Sure, the Indonesian people are not to blame, but it's the only way we can hurt a government that doesn't give a shit what we think of them, regardless of how much we bend over to please them.
|
And do you think the Australian government gave a shit about what the "Indonesians" think of them?! LOL
And how did Australia bend over backwards to please Indonesia? I hope you're not referring to the amazing display of common human decency and charity that the Australian people (and to be fair, Howard's government) showed after the St Stephen's Day tragedy?
Mr Mephisto