Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Schapelle Corby - Aussie Ambassadors Office Hangs Up On The Human Rights Abuse of Schapelle Corby in Indonesia

Click on the picture to enlarge and read.

Re: Human rights abuse of an Australian citizen in Indonesia

When I rang your office directly about this to-day, your staff hung up on me (MP3 recording of that here), and then refused to speak to me when I called back.

So please Google your name. On the first page of those results you will come across this correspondence to yourself (within a Women for Schapelle blog post), of August 2011 (two months ago), reminding you about unanswered correspondence of March 2011 (seven months ago). You have not acknowledged (at any time), any of my questions, despite a phone call to your office (in March 2011), confirming you'd received them, and saying I'd get a reply.

Briefly Greg, as you say yourself, Australia has a duty to ensure that Australians are treated fairly according to the laws of the country they are detained in. As my initial ignored questions here, here and here show, Schapelle was not treated according to Indonesian law, and this further detailed research (from the EXPENDABLE team) confirms that, as does the opinion of Indonesian law expert Roger A Smith, of Civil Liberties Australia.

Further, Schapelle's sentence was wildly out of whack with all legal precedents in Indonesia, as graphically explained here by leading Indonesian lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea, in a letter to John Howard. Her sentence was four times higher than any previous sentence in that country for a similar crime, and double that of an Indonesian man who was found with nearly 4o times as much marijuana as her. He had 161 kilos.

Greg, are you refusing to respond on this because Schapelle was the victim of domestic airport corruption in this country that went to the highest levels (considering Macquarie Bank own Sydney Airport Corporation, see the link), and it's convenient to keep her exactly where she is? Allan Kessing, a very senior customs officer closely involved with security at Sydney Airport (now retired), seems to think so.

And how do you explain the just revealed dangerous failure of Sydney Airport Corporation to scan Schapelle's boogie board bag, before it was loaded on a flight to a high risk destination (Bali)? Though I must admit, it was very convenient for one of their drug smuggling owners. Do any other airport-owning bank directors still have their snouts in the trough Greg? What do you reckon? Is that why every single frame of Australian airport CCTV (that Schapelle begged for), was trashed too?

I'm also looking forward to a response from Prof Carolyn Evans, Dean of Melbourne Law School, about the apparent lies of her staff member Prof Tim Lindsey, re the relative severity of Schapelle's sentence. It will be interesting to see if this academic can back up his wildly unrealistic claims to the media in 2005.

Regards, Kim

PS - I will call your office again very soon, to confirm you have received this latest correspondence.