People Smuggling: Indonesians Jailed in Australia...

People smuggling is a crime, perhaps a heinous crime. It is one that does not pay, particularly if you get caught in Australian waters. Australia has pretty serious consequences for those that are caught and successfully prosecuted. The minimum mandatory sentence for those convicted of people smuggling is five years. However, non-parole periods can be set, and this seems to be in the range of three years.

Four Indonesians have learned the seriousness of the consequences the hard way and have been sentenced to five years in prison. The Queensland Supreme Court in Brisbane has found the men were responsible for the trips of two boatloads of Afghanis, Kurds and Iranians to Australia. But, the court was clear that the men were not the orgainsers of the trips, rather they were recruited by others to do their dirty work.

Each of the passengers paid somewhere between AUD 5000 and AUD 15000 for their passage. The Indonesians, Ferry Irawan and Sali were caught off the Ashmore Reef and Anton Tambunan and Joko Sampurno were caught off Christmas Island on two separate boats. The Indonesians were paid about IDR 5 million for the voyages.

There are some 70 others awaiting their turn to make their way through the Australian court system for people smuggling offenses. So, it would seem that there will be plenty of others looking at the five-year minimum mandatory sentence.

The question that arises from all this is are minimum mandatory sentences enough to thwart people smugglers and stop the crime? Probably not. Let's face it, when there is an offer of 3, 4, 5 or 50 times what you would normally earn in a month, then it is fair to say that there will be plenty of poor and illiterate Indonesian fisherman that will not think twice about looking a "gift horse" in the mouth. Perhaps the answer is not the poor fisherman getting caught. Perhaps the answer is to work harder at identifying and arresting the core organisers of these people smuggling operations.

Then again, perhaps the answer is getting those countries were the people being smuggled transit to Australia to take the crime seriously enough to draft and enact legislation that puts in place significant penalties that are likely to deter individuals from becoming involved in people smuggling operations.

Hmmm...

Toowoomba Flood: 10 January 2011

The power of nature and the heroics of a few. This is Toowoomba yesterday. Queensland is suffering.

No other commentary necessary!

"Niggers" and "Sand-Niggers" Are Not Offensive Words...Huh?

Since when?

Well, since a Queensland Magistrate, Michael O'Driscoll, ruled that the words "nigger", "sand-nigger", and "Abos" are not offensive to reasonable people. Therefore, if they are not offensive, Magistrate O'Driscoll, then I am free to use them without fear in this blogpost, aren't I?

The case involves a retired man, Denis Mulheron, who wrote a letter to his local member. The letter contained all the words noted above. Christine Turner, an employee of the local member, read the letter and was offended, and complained. In essence, the letter was demanding that there be a more stringent immigration policy adopted in order to keep the labeled individuals out of Australia.

It might be worth adding, although there is nothing worthy in Mulheron's letter, that he referred to Arabs not only as sand-niggers, but as sand-nigger terrorists. Mulheron also wants the Labor party to toughen up its immigration policy and implement laws that would exclude Muslim women who have been circumcised.

Mulheron's excuse, which Magistrate O'Driscoll seemingly took into account, was that "I'm not a member of the cafe, chardonnay and socialist set ... to me that is everyday language". And?

In any event, Magistrate O'Driscoll determined that the letter did not contain language that was strong enough to be punishable, as the reasonable person would not be offended. I guess this is a slap in the face for Ms. Turner who now knows that she is not a reasonable person.

On that score, I wonder what Magistrate O'Driscoll's views are on other terms such as "Gook", "Slope", "Chink", "Coon", "Boong", or "Faggot", among myriad of other derogatory and, seemingly until now, offensive terms?

I would also like to meet this reasonable person. I always thought that I was reasonable, and these words are offensive to me. Yet, it is important that I write them down and that you read them as they are and not as "n*gger" or "f_ _ _ _t" because they are so much more offensive to the naked eye when all the letters are present.

If nothing else, this must be about respect! We must respect our diversity, we must embrace our difference, and we must above all live in peaceful co-existence with others. Perhaps it is time Magistrate O'Driscoll considered common decency and had a little respect for his fellow men and women who inhabit this great land of ours, because reaction to Magistrate O'Driscoll's decision suggests that there are a lot more people who are offended by the words than those who are not!

Abortion in Australia -- A Survey...

A recent survey of 1873 electors in Australia showed that 57% of them support a woman's right to have an abortion "readily when they want one". The results of the survey suggest that a minority is dictating government policy on the legality of abortion in Australia generally, and in the states specifically. Victoria and the ACT have decriminalized abortion. WA has amended its laws. All other states and territories have abortion provisions on their criminal statute books.

It appears that politicians are more concerned about being seen to be pro-abortion than they are about being seen to be pro-women's rights.

Consequently, any moves towards decriminalizing abortion have been hampered by minority groups. So, perhaps democracy is not always as simple as the majority imposing their will on the minority. It would seem that in some debates that the minority quite often punches above its weight.

However, it is worth noting that in a similar survey from 20 years ago, the percentage of those that agreed with a woman's right to have an abortion if, and when, she wanted one was only 38% percent.

Queensland, according to the survey results, is the most pro-abortion state, with some 63% of respondents saying they favoured a woman's right to have an abortion. This is interesting because Queensland is currently pursuing a young couple who procured a miscarriage (sometimes reported as an abortion) by acquiring the drug RU 486 (this is not the morning after pill). What makes this interesting is that the young woman being charged is thought to be the first woman in more than 50 years to be charge with procuring her own miscarriage.

The actions of the woman and her boyfriend are illegal because RU 486 is only available at a limited number of medical practitioners. The RU 486 that was used in this case was sourced from overseas.

The abortion debate is an interesting one in Australia considering the studies show that growing majorities in the primary voting demographics support a woman's right to an abortion. This makes the arguments usually put forward by politicians that the electorate is not in support of a move towards decriminalization, wrong. Even more interesting is research that suggest more than 75% of politicians themselves are pro-choice.

The current study is available in the journal People and Place and published by the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University.

What's the Story Morning Glory?

This is a really cool photograph.

The photo and story can be found here.

In essence, no-one is quite sure what causes them. But, it is thought that it might relate to a combination of hot and cooler air that circulates in a tube pattern. Apparently, these clouds can role on for a 1000 kms and up to altitudes of 2 kms, but only in the spring. These clouds were snapped over Burketown in Queensland, and published by NASA.

Pranks -- A Pain in the Arse?

The mere reporting of stories such as this one are likely to lead to a number of copycats. However, it might also lead to people give the toilet seat the once over before sitting down and getting down to business.

A story out of Cairns, Queensland, has a man glued to the seat of a public toilet in a shopping centre. Unfortunately, the man went to the male bathroom in the shopping centre only to find himself glued to the seat. An embarrassing prank for sure, inconvenient as well, and painful too.

When he was finally able to attract attention, an ambulance was called. The ambulance arrived and managed to get the man off the toilet but with the toilet seat still glued to his behind. The toilet seat was finally removed once the man arrived at Cairns base Hospital.

The hospital is reporting the man sustained minor injuries. Police are continuing their investigation.

This post probably lends itself to a picture but I have not yet found one that suits the subject matter.

Homosexuality -- Not Normal -- In Queensland

Queensland is a bright and sunny place that is known to be good one day and perfect the next. However, it would seem that it is neither bright and sunny not good one day and perfect the next when it comes to the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Reforms to the adoption regime in Queensland is set to continue a ban against same-sex (homosexual / lesbian) couples from adopting children.

This was a pleasing development for Dorothy Pratt, the Independent MP for Nanango. In Pratt's view, homosexuality is not normal. I am guessing she also believes that homosexuality and lesbianism is a disease that can be cured. It is a sad state of affairs when we discriminate against a sector of the community based on their sexuality with respect to their ability to be parents.

The first and foremost considerations should be that of the child. Therefore, if this is the paramount right, then the consideration moves to whether the applicant(s) to be would make a good parent(s). It is a sad indictment when righteous do-gooders hide behind the idea that God ordains only parental relationships with children that involve a married mother and father. The idea that a child cannot be given a balanced view of the world with two fathers or two mothers is naive at best. The reality is that children can and will have interaction with role models outside of their immediate families.

The law is alive and is constantly changing. So, as we move into the brave new world of the future, it seems almost certain that at some point Queensland will have cause to revisit this issue. And, perhaps at that time all Queenslanders will be given the right to adopt where they are deemed to be suitable parent material.

Thus endeth the sermon for Friday.

Baby Swinging Video -- Update

I have written about this particular case a couple of times before, here and here. The case of Chris Illingworth and the baby swinging video posted on Liveleak after watching it and downloading it from YouTube. This is an interesting case as it has the potential to set a precedent as to what constitutes child abuse material under Australian law.

The case, which was subject to a recent committal hearing in the Maroochydoore's Magistrates Court in Queensland, has now been ordered to go to trial. A date for that trial has yet to be set.

There are a number of concerns in this case. First, is that there is no evidence to suggest that the child in the video clip that was posted, was in fact harmed. There is evidence of a speculative nature that the child may have been hurt. This evidence is speculative because the person giving it has not physically examined the child in question. She, Dr. Susan Cadzow, is basing that testimony on nothing more than having watched the video with respect to this case.

Second, whether the intent of the parliament when they passed this particular law was for this purpose. There is no doubt that the legislation is designed to protect children from violence and harm. There is no direct evidence that this child has been harmed. Furthermore, it is thought that the man and the child in the video are part of a circus troupe, and possibly operating somewhere in Eastern Europe. Police have yet to locate either the man or the child.

It seems that when this finally does go to trial that Illingworth and his lawyers are going to argue that this is not child abuse. At best this is a training video for circus performers. A novel argument and one that seemingly has some legs.

The moral of this story is that Australians need to be careful what they watch, let alone what they post, while online. The cold hared reality is that if the police continue to interpret the law in the manner this case suggest that they are, then even watching this type of video online means that the viewer is liable for a term of imprisonment of ten years.

I guess I am not going to be talking about whether I have watched this particular video anytime soon.

Child Abuse Material -- Australia to Set a Precedent

It seems that this is a perfect test case to to determine the reach of child abuse legislation as it relates to the uploading / downloading, publishing, and sharing of child abuse material. More specifically, the case also has the potential to establish exactly what kind of material can be classified as child abuse material for the purposes of sustaining a charge of publishing and sharing such materials online.

I have written about this case before, here. The case of Chris Illingworth is set for a committal hearing in Maroochydore Magistrates Court on 8 July 2009. The purpose of a committal hearing is to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. Essentially, whether there is enough being put forward by the prosecution regarding guilt that a jury could make a determination as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

What is interesting is that he has hired a silk (a term given to barristers who have been appointed Queen's Counsel / QC or Senior Counsel / SC) as this is unusual for a case like this and at this stage.

This suggests that the big guns (this is not to suggest that there are not solicitors out there who could not do the job) are being brought in at the start of the legal process, and rightly so, as this is a case where the implications extend way beyond the case itself. If the prosecution gets up in the Magistrates Court, then the definition of what constitutes child abuse material is considerably broader than what many had considered it to be previously.

The charges that Illingworth is facing could see him sent to prison for a maximum of ten years for each of the two charges that he is facing.

The offending video shows a Russian circus performer tossing his child around. The video does not show that the child has been harmed and in fact the child does not seem too bothered by the treatment and seems to enjoy it. Now, would I throw and swing my my son around, probably not at the moment seeing he is only just a touch over six months old.

However, I remember when I was a kid I liked to be swung around in circles by my arms and tossed up in the air (and caught again). So, it is probably just as well my folks did not record this and then in a moment of reminiscing I posted that video online.

Michael Byrne QC is going to argue that the video is a Russian circus training video. I probably would have argued something similar and probably would of tossed in a few videos of the Chinese training their kiddie gymnasts for comparison. I would have figured that any video that shows children undertaking strenuous physical activity at a very early age after having been removed from their homes and taken to a training facility would be tantamount to child abuse as well, even if the parents approve.

I might also be arguing whether this was the intent of the legislation in the first place. I have not looked at the parliamentary debate on the bill when it was proposed. However, I am guessing the focus was probably much more on the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.

The other question I would be asking is why is Illingworth being targeted considering that the video is widely available and has supposedly been shown on Australian TV? I have not seen it on TV and I am not going to admit to having watched it (as that would be tantamount to saying I have downloaded it / accessed it).

There is good reason for this as any Australian who views the video (and it is still available online) can be charged and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment not to exceed 10 years simply for accessing material that the police determine to be child abuse material.

The case would seem to be weak as the police's brief of evidence relies on a witness statement by someone who has not had any interaction with the family or the child in the video. Susan Cadzow, specialist pediatrician at Royal Brisbane Children's Hospital, made a witness statement to the effect that the baby was being swung vigorously but ends with the baby laughing and smiling. But, nevertheless, this does not mean, according to her expert opinion, that the laughter and smiles do not mask some hidden damage to the child. Therefore, and once again, according to Cadzow's expert opinion the video constitutes child abuse material.

I guess this is why I wouldn't want to be a police officer or public prosecutor on this one. No disrespect to the skills, experience, and expertise of Dr. Cadzow, but a witness statement about the possible harm done to a child based on the viewing of a video when having never examined the child seems to be a stretch.

What this case does mean at the moment is this. If you are a parent, then do not toss your child in the air and have someone else film it. Then in a moment of pride in your child having fun do not be tempted to upload this video to your blog or Facebook or other online location. If you do, then the next knock on your door might be the police looking to arrest you for dealing in child abuse material.

Big Brother is watching!

The Law and Online File Sharing -- An Australian Example

This case is really interesting for a number of reasons, but paramount among these is that of a law being designed for a particular purpose being literally interpreted and nabbing an unlikely victim. Law enforcement in Australia is generally pretty good. Like all other places there are times when one shakes their head in disgust or disbelief at how laws are interpreted and applied. This might just be one of those occasions where statutory interpretation goes a little bit awry.

Chris Illingworth, a seeming harmless 61-year-old from Maroochydore in Queensland has been charged with distributing child abuse materials over the internet (video capture of the event and inset of Illingworth from here). Illingworth came across a video of a man swinging a child by the arms and thought it worthy of being republished on Liveleak (video sharing site). The man and child in question are part of a circus troupe form Russia (or at least that is the belief) and perhaps this is what the Russians do, start the training of their youngsters and future circus performers at a very young age.

It must be noted that Illingworth has no criminal history relating to child abuse of any kind. An extensive search by police of his home and his computers turned up no images that would violate any provisions of current law.

The video certainly shows the child being swung around. There are probably arguments to be made for and against how violent the swinging is. However, the video ends with a smiling and laughing child.

Where this gets a little scary is the involvement of "experts" who get to offer opinions based on watching a video and through no interview of the alleged victim. In this case the police called in a specialist pediatrician, Susan Cadzow, from Royal Brisbane Children's Hospital. Now, in Cadzow's expert opinion this video represents child abuse and although no injury appears apparent this is irrelevant as there might be hidden injuries that will not manifest until some later time.

If police are going to charge people for this and then the Office of Public Prosecutions is going to proceed with a prosecution, then Australians should be forewarned and thus forearmed that the long arm of the law is gunning for you with seemingly endless powers of interpretation. The law though is helpful to the police as child abuse material "is, or appears to be, a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse" where the victim is appears to be under the age of 18.

What is helpful to police about this definition is that it does not require actual abuse to be taking place, it just has to be perceived as abuse and the police can take action.

This begs the question, would a video of say a child contortionist undergoing training and being videoed and then this video is uploaded to the internet constitute child abuse? Or even where the contortionist is performing for money, wouldn't this be child exploitation and subsequently abuse?

So, what were the police thinking in this case and why did they decide to proceed?

It seems that Illingworth is going to become an interesting test case. Although, I am sure Illingworth would rather not be the centre of any test case. Unfortunately, for him this is what he has become.

The case will certainly set a precedent, at least in the Australian jurisdiction, as to what constitutes child abuse and the enforcement of the provisions as they relate to viewing and uploading child abuse material. If the prosecution succeeds on this, then Illingworth is potentially looking at doing up to a maximum of ten years in prison for uploading a couple of circus performers, one of who was under the age of 18.

Scary.

The Jakaroo and the Government

Something that came into the mail box...

A Queensland jackaroo is overseeing his herd in remote territory when suddenly a brand-new BMW advances out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a designer suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, 'If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?'

The jackaroo looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, 'Sure, why not?'

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.

Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel Spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, 'You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.'

'That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,' says the Cowboy.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the cowboy says to the young man, 'Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?'

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, 'Okay, why not?'

'You work for the Australian Government', says the jackaroo.

'Wow! That's correct,' says the yuppie, 'but how did you guess that?'

'No guessing required.' answered the jackaroo. 'You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used all kinds of expensive equipment that clearly somebody else paid for, You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows ... this is a herd of sheep. Now give me back my dog.'

Schapelle Corby -- A New Investigation?

The latest series of allegations to be doing the rounds suggests that perhaps a further investigation is warranted. Mercedes Corby and the extended Corby family seem to be demanding a further investigation, simply as a means of clearing her family's name, once and for all.

This is in spite of Queensland Police saying that they are not doing one as there is insufficient evidence, at least for now, to warrant one. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) on the other hand are making no comment, make of that what you will.

There were some inherent problems in the court case that led to Schapelle Corby's original conviction. These problems relate to matters such as the testing of the actual drugs and whether or not their exact origin could have been determined through laboratory testing. The other major problem was finger print analysis of the bag in which the drugs were contained. To this end finger print evidence might only show that Schapelle Corby did not handle the sealed plastic bag that contained the drugs. In this case no finger prints is hardly evidence of innocence as the wearing of gloves would rule out the presence of fingerprints.

Nevertheless, as I have written previously, where there is this much smoke there is an increased likelihood of discovering fire. The question is whether or not a further investigation and the expenses involved are warranted. Malcolm McCauley, the man behind the latest allegations, has just been released from prison and Michael Corby Sr is dead, so unless McCauley is going to divulge all of the players involved in this little drug trafficking scheme, then the value of any investigation seems to be limited.

There are also issues of whether an investigation will clear the Corby's names of any involvement or only muddy the waters even further and even if the investigation turns up nothing and seemingly clears the Corby's of the McCauley allegations, how and what would the impact be on Schapelle Corby's situation as a convicted drug trafficker sitting in an Indonesian prison on the resort island of Bali?

This is a sad tale for the Corby family for sure but it is riveting reading for many others, me included! Although I am more interested in the legal angles and the avenues of review if and when certain things come to light.

As always, the saga continues.

Mercedes Corby Denies Allegations

Mercedes Corby has denied the allegations that were aired on the ABC were lies and that she and her family can prove this. The Queensland Police have apparently issued a statement that they have no evidence linking Michael Corby Sr to the drug trafficking trade.

Mercedes Corby has recently won a defamation pay out against Channel 7 for an interview that they ran with Jody Powers where Powers alleged that Mercedes was involved in drug trafficking.

If Mercedes Corby and her family are sure that they can prove that Michael Corby Sr was never involved and that he has a clean police record, then this is another defamation case that might be worth pursuing. However, it seems that the Corby's are only asking for an apology.

The story continues.