Schapelle Corby
Like a much watched horror movie in slow motion,
the trial of the unfortunate Schapelle Corby has come to its inevitable
conclusion via the wonders of mass communication and a mass hysteria of
compassion; a compassion singularly lacking in the imprisonment of hundreds in
Australia's gulags, where the victims remain faceless and nameless.
I wonder what degree of sympathy would be felt if
the individuals in Australia's detainee camps were to have their cases covered
to the degree that Schapelle Corby's case has in the past eight months? If we
were to observe the anguish of separation, isolation and hopelessness suffered
by imprisoned people whose only crime was seeking freedom and refuge, would we
come to a similar degree of empathy for these
victims?
As tragic as the Corby case
is, it is only the revelation of her predicament as a visual phenomenon which
elicits our sympathy. If the cameras were not there, Ms Corby would barely exist
in our consciousness; and if she was on trial in an Australian court, say for
importing drugs into Australia, her case would be virtually unknown, - whether
she was guilty or not - (the great unknown in the Bali case - though the
evidence against her would appear to be very strong). The agony felt by the
Australian people, no doubt fed by a latent xenophobia to some degree, appears
to be magnified, unsurprisingly, by the harshness of the sentence. For an
offense which would incur at most a two to four year sentence, (possibly
suspended) in Australia, Corby could have been sentenced to death in Indonesia,
and the twenty years she received would place her amongst the harshest of
sentences in Australia.
I wonder what a
difference it would have made if the case of Lindy Chamberlain had been covered
in a similar fashion to the Corby case; i.e. with the agony of her personal
predicament bared for all to see? Let's not forget that Lindy was sentenced to
life imprisonment in the Northern Territory, and that at that time life meant
life - not twenty years. Life. In a way these two cases are the absolute
opposites of each other. Lindy was tough, Schapelle is vulnerable. Lindy looked
hard, as she set her face against her accusers, Schapelle is beautiful and sexy.
Lindy was married to (horror of horrors) a Seventh Day Adventist minister,
Schapelle is just a happy-go-lucky Ozzie girl. Lindy was convicted by a
sensationalist media, and a public who were prepared to convict her from a
vantage point of ignorance and rumour. Schapelle is defended by those of a
similar vantage point.
Put simply,
Schapelle is defended because we feel for her, therefore she is innocent. But
what if she is guilty? What if she were to confess, in the hope of a pardon?
Would our sympathy be the same? It would for me, because one cannot but be
sympathetic for a young lady in such a dire predicament. To pronounce her
innocent from thousands of kilometres away is altogether another matter. In the
end the Corby case is less a case of serious journalism and impartiality, than
it is a sick version of Big Brother, and in a way, we, as the voyeurs, are
complicit. The fight for universal justice goes way beyond the Schapelle Corby
case.
Posted: Thu - September 21, 2006 at 04:47 PM
