Neutrality? 

"There are also allegations that the attention and sympathy especially from the Australian public and media may be related to xenophobic sentiment and a unfair mistrust of Asian legal systems. Also, many think there was no motive for Corby to transport marijuana from Brisbane to Bali where the value is far less, and where it is readily available on the street not far from her prison (and even within it), i.e. it would be like smuggling ice to Eskimos."

This seems POV to me.  (Of course, in the interests of full disclosure I believe that she is guilty).

I added some referencing to a Sydney Morning Herald article where it was alleged that Australian marijuana (in particular hydroponically grown marijuana) sold quite well in Bali for a few reasons:
 Indonesian marijuana is quite poor in quality - rich tourists generally prefer the Australian stuff.
 Due to the lack of entrapment laws in Indonesia, tourists can often be caught by Balinese police stings - and so prefer to buy their marijuana off other whites, who are less likely to be members of the Indonesian police.

I can understand the text on the (turns out to be non-lethal) white powder being sent to the embassy being removed.  I believe that even though a link hasn't been established between the two events that this incident will have a bearing on the case, and especially its portrayal (spelling?) in Indonesia, but I can see why the lack of a clear connection between the two events has led to its removal.

That said, I cannot understand why the text on "smuggling ice to Eskimos" is allowed to remain whereas the text from the Sydney Morning Herald, a respected (within Australia at least) news source is not.  If the view that there would be no point smuggling marijuana to Indonesia is allowed to remain, why not the view that there would be a point, especially if that view is put forward by a major Australian newspaper?  The article seems POV and biased in favour of Corby to me.

 04:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)