G.O.D, Government Operative Delusionals fiddles with the despair of the dust bowl..

Mark my words, after Kim Beazley's speech in the Grievance Debate (Hansard or May 23, page 42) John Anderson will be spending more time inspecting dry tanks, and on his knees for more excuses to stay away from Canberra. Beazley had a terrific go at the cover-up, or sheer imcompetence, over the transfer of Mick Palmer from Inspector of Transport Security to Vanstone's Rau Inquiry - after Palmer had been in the job for less than four months. The speech may assist Schapelle Corby's defense, and will be much more helpful than the slanderous ravings of the shock-jock lunatic on 2GB, Malcolm Elliott. Elliott's rant against the Indonesian leadership and legal system was previously noted in a paragraph in SMH, but the audio clips broadcast on last night's Media Watch [no transcript yet] were really quite vile. So bad, that I have to wonder why the shock-jocks' favourite PM, and Lord Downer himself, haven't reacted against it in order to neutralise a detrimental impact on Indonesians. If Corby is looking at conviction, I'd say the combination of Elliott's mouthings and the failure of our leadership to denounce him, may be seen in the length of her sentence. Beazley's forthright exposure of profound systemic weaknesses in baggage handling could tip the balance back toward six months, and away from fifteen years.

Beazley: "An ex-judge should be inquiring into the matter of Cornelia Rau. Mick Palmer ought to be handling aviation security; that is what he ought to be doing right now."

Earlier in the day, my petition to investigate the circumstances of Ms Rau's detention was deposited by Phil Barresi.

There was some other good stuff by Labor, including a speech by Lindsay Tanner in the Adjournment (page 88) on Australian Media. He drew attention to the insular nature of reporting in our newspapers and periodicals, and ended with commendations for Nicolas Rothwell and Paul McGeough, and "but the media needs to wake up to itself".

Written answers previously supplied this tidbit on the Cross-Media Ownership Rules (Hansard May 12, page 117), Question No. 648.

"Mr Murphy asked ... why will the Minister not guarantee that the Government's media-reform agenda will prohibit Mr Packer's and Mr Murdoch's media companies being allowed to buy more newspapers, television networks and radio stations."

The answer from Mr McGauran -

"I have nothing further to add to the information provided previously. As noted in answers to questions 24, 26, 27, 28, 160, 161, 162, 164 and 165 the Government is currently considering its approach to media ownership reform."

And there you have it, Gus. Thanks for the intro, as always.

TG, the ABC is turning right wing and you are getting hooked. Even Media Watch is not what it once was.

I agree with Malcolm T Elliott and disagree with the ABC. Call a spade a spade and let's get radical.

The Indonesian judges are morons and idiots in that they are not giving Schapelle a fair trial.

Ron Bakir has just apologished to the Indonesian government. Why? Because if he doesn't they may give a verdict to kill Schappelle and give her the firing squad. Now to kill an innocent person is idiotic is it not?

Media Watch got a camera close up at the very end and then said "Take Malcolm T Elliot off the air."

Would not that be John Howard's government line? Watch TG that what you are seeing now on the ABC is not the right-wing line.

Keep Malcolm T Elliot on the air is my call. Let his mouth flow.

There are lots of very legitimate criticisms to be made of the Indonesian legal system, but timing is certainly an issue here, with not 1 but 10 Australians facing life imprisonment, and for 9 of them, a strong chance of being sentenced to death.

Secondly, those criticisms at any time can be better made without resorting to completely repugnant racist screeds revolving around monkey comparisons.

Myriad, Darwin's Theory scientifically proves that humans came down from the trees.

If the Indonesians shot Schapelle Corby, what would you call them?

Would you trade places with Schapelle Corby and go through what she has been through?

I find it unforgivable that eight percent of Australian's think she is guilty.

I think those eight percent should be exported to Indonesia to live under their government and see if that government makes a monkey out of them before they reach old age.

Many Australians died in the Bali bombing and those who were guilty in setting off the bomb got a very light sentence, not what Schapelle will get.

Does not the Bali bombings indicate that Indonesians don't like Australians and therefore it was OK for Australians to die at Bali? So what is wrong with an extra Australian dying on Friday? The Indonesians don't mind that Australians died at Bali. I think we all should go Ape over the guilty verdict on Friday.

This article in The Age, May 23, by Bruce Grant Corby and Wood: a test of diplomacy is thoughtful.

The human rights issue introduces into foreign policy a new debate about morality. Morality is the key to civilisation, yet it has been distorted in international affairs by religion, which confuses it with dogma and, on the secular side, with the notion that power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Like, a really big one.

Len, I take offence at your generalised attack on Indonesians. I think a lot of problems in politics would be helped if people were cognizant of the reality of institutions, which is far greater than that of races, nations, religions and social classes.

The Indonesian Government and the Indonesian Military are two institutions I feel we have good reason to despise, as is the terrorist group behind the Bali bombing.

Indonesia is not a democracy in any meaningful sense and it is run by the military - who have a minimum quota of seats in the Parliament.

Most Indonesians are not Javanese, which is the dominant imperial 'race' controlling the archipelago. I'd hate to think what peoples overseas say about Australians in response to our unfortunate government's policies on refugees.

Hamish, you have put a fence between us because "offense" is spelled "offence" and "conizant" is spelled 'cognisance,' a noun meaning knowledge.

The Indonesian Government and the Military are separate but the Military's salary is paid by the Government so is the Military going to do and say the opposite of what the Government wants? I think not.

We both know what peoples overseas say about the Australian government's refugee policy.

The US criticise China for a lack of human rights and yet China criticises us in our refugee policy. The Labor member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd would know more about it.

He also would know the politics of the border of what is going on between East Timor and Australia and that border shift is being fought because of natural gas under the ocean. We are giving ground. That could mean 'giving ocean' and that means we do not own so much of that natural gas and money needs to be given back to East Timor. The border fence is movable but the offence of that move is a political and it affects other political fields and relations between East Timor and Indonesia.

It could even stress the legal system in the Schappelle Corby case. The man who is very stressed about the case is Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty.

I wonder why?

Hamish: I stand by my spelling in this case Len, but I liked the pun.

TG, that picture of the tank is amazing! I really think that it epitomises what is wrong with this world. I wonder why fanatics tend to use the military when the doctrine they follow originates from peace makers (Christ and Mohammed)?

Naomi, Have you ever thought that if there was no human life, the world would be just perfect.

I think this is a tough call indeed. On what basis are we to conclude the trial was fair or not? Whose standards are we to apply? There are plenty of instances in which trials in most countries can be judged to be 'unfair' but I haven't seen any evidence that this was the case in the Schapelle Corby case.

It seems the evidence that there was a substantial amount of illegal drugs in her luggage is not disputed. She claims she did not put it there and didn't know about it. Fair enough. Now let's imagine for one minute that an Indonesian woman had brought the same amount of illegal drugs into Australia in her luggage and been caught, and made the same claim. I wonder how far she would have got with a similar defence. I am sure that the presence of an Indonesian petty criminal who made vague allegations about innocent passengers being used in drug smuggling operations in Indonesia would have been given equal credence.

I suspect this is not about verdicts but about sentences. I abhor the use of the death sentence in any circumstances. I also suspect that there might be an element of racism involved though I have never seen any evidence that Indonesians hate Australians in particular, well, no more than Australians hold Indonesians in a somewhat low regard. This is all far too generic - the stuff of lazy generalisation if I'm to be polite about it.

Let's concentrate on what is wrong about this - and that is the possible application of the death sentence. Let us also remember that our government has no particular problem with the application of the death sentence in numerous circumstances - and extra-judicially at that.

David Browning, are you Mick Keelty's twin brother?

I have been following this case for six months. The Indonesians have crucified Schapelle 100 times over.

Way back in about January, did they asked her to re-pack her body board bag and why she did not pack the 4.1 kg of drugs into her bag they immediately, well it said immediately in the newspaper, immediately handcuffed her and she has had handcuffs un her ever since. She never had handcuffs on her up to that point.

I don't know eher your tough call comes from, maybe you have Indonesian tonsils.

What is wrong with this is that John Howard does nothing?

Now you tell me what is wrong from your expert's eyes. Did you carry the drugs for her or did you not? That is the only way you can be add any light on this case?

Hamish, I am not so sure that Free Speech is a good idea now that this site is getting to be known that it is a site for Free Speech.

It is getting to be the site of irresposibility and to say anything that is so outlandish and stupid that it is complete fabrication of anything that even resembles the truth.

I am now beginning to form the view after going up against some silly people here that Free Speech should be banned from Australia. Free Speech breeds lunatics. It is much like if we gave people a handgun and bullets that people then could shoot 10 people before they went to bed that night. That is what Free Speech is doing to this website from what I can see.

Maybe instead of having free Speech we should have free guns so people can murder each other because people with Free Speech on this site seems to want to murder me and others instead of using it to a good purpose and use it responsibly for the good of YourDemocracy. We just had a person here in all honesty saying that Schapelle Corby received a fair trail. It has been seen that 92 percent of people think that Schapelle is innocent but we have not had any survey on whether she has received a fair trail.

We have had expert legal representation say in the media that she has not had a fair trial. One was Professor Wilson from Bond University, but we still have had one person here say she has received fair trail.
That is what is see that free Speech has now gone into lunacy.
The survay on whether she has had a fair trial or not probably would be about 99.5% against 0.5% who would say Schapelle has had a fair trial.

No one has disputed Professor Wilson's claim that Schapelle has not had a fair trial in the media until just now on this website.

Hey guys,

The Corby trial is an emotive one for many as the media have made it an issue and obscured what might happen with such a case without media coverage.

I point out two things in relation to this trial but I haven't commented anywhere before and won't again.

The first is that the main judge has boasted tonight that he has never found anyone charged of a drug offence not guilty. Their system is different to ours and no Australian would accept such treatment in Australia. It is a risk travelling overseas at any time and she may be innocent. I wouldn't have a clue and I suspect only she really does.

One fact which seems to me highly relevant and has received little mention in the media. Some but little. That fact is that the amount of Marijuana she is charged with having would be worth about $40,000 in Australia and $4,000 in Bali. On that basis why would anyone even attempt to smuggle? They could buy it there at 10% of the Australian value.

That said, to have the trial on TV live is obscene and should be stopped. Once a verdict is given then perhaps we can all have opinions.

Best.

Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals leader John Anderson addresses the National Press Club today, May 25. I wonder if someone will ask him about airport security?