What the UK government has done was just some cynical PR practice, to make chinese authoirty look bad and win certain domestic constituencies.
Also i think the media here made partial reports of Akmal Shaikh case. Unlike what was reported by british media, chinese reports mentioned chinese legal authority did take and considered the evidence provided by uk officials and psychologists. The plea on psychological ground was rejected in the same way as Akmal Shaikh was sentenced to death, all done by Chinese law and proceture. Chinese laws do grant leniency on psychological ground.
Whether China has a independent justice system, or Akmal Shaikh had bipolar disorder, is another matter for discussion.
Scooterassassin's interesting comment:
It's quite perplexing.
The chinese government stated that there was no historical record of the poor guy ever being ill: that is - no record of being hospitalised and treated for bipolar affective disorder; no history of treatment by his GP for mental disorder; no history of detention and sectioning under mental health legislation before he came to China.
The British government have never refuted this point: all the British government have offered, is that Mr Sheikh appears mentally ill (now) in China after he had was caught with a trunk load of illicit drugs. They do make a good case to cast reasonable doubt.
What troubles me, is the double standards of the British government, and in particular, the BBC. If the Communist Party were so inhumane for making no exception to executing a man who could have potentially killed thousands more with illegal drugs, which might be mitigated because of his mental illness, then why was he not diagnosed and treated correctly in the United Kingdom?
If the United Kingdom is so high up in terms of being a humanitarian society enough to lecture China on morality and humanitarian law, , how is it, that the United Kingdom failed to treat this man for his mental illness, after 50+ years, and then to expect, a foreign country, with capital punishment, which the UK only abolished as recently as 60 or so years ago, to 'recognise' that he has a mental illness, which they never treated him for?
How is it, that the UK recognises 1 in 7 people suffer from depression, and that most benefit from psychological therapies, but are never offered much more than a 6 month waiting list? Or perhaps those parents who have to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders, and advocate for their autistic children to access education, and end up having to take the local education authority to court?
The newspapers say that the judges in the final hearing in China, were laughing when they heard his testimony. The BBC reporters, deign to think that they can interpret everything for the British masses, and state unequivocally, that the judges were 'amused' by his testimony, which was clearly that of a mad man. They do not account for the reaction of the judges, which is similar to 'throwing out of court'.
I don't know what to think. Innocent men have been executed and imprisoned in many British miscarriages of justice. Sometimes pointing the fingers at others, only shows us how ugly the system we believe and grew up in, really is.
On the other hand, it's heart-breaking thinking that there is that real possibility, that he might have been mentally ill: and failed by the UK in terms of not being able to access mental health services. That is the UK's duty to its citizens. We won't ask newspaper journalists to undertake any moral duty to think about their duty instead of the knee-jerk protectionism.
No comments:
Post a Comment