Showing posts with label Akmal Shaikh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Akmal Shaikh. Show all posts

Saturday, 9 January 2010

Akmal Shaikh:UK government and media

if gordon brown or david miliband really wanted to save Akmal Shaikh from chinese execution, they shouldn't have made all those loud protests and pr gestures, instead they should have made behind scene diplomacy. UK as one of the big five in the un security council, could have made a deal easily with chinese to save Akmal Shaikh's life 10 times by satisfying china in other areas, say, making some ambiguous statement on the us arms sale to taiwan, or on tibet to make chinese happy.

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.

Tuesday, 29 December 2009

Prostitute boycotts Chinese on ethical grounds

Prostitute boycotts Chinese on ethical grounds
One of the more touching messages I receive in the run-up to the outrageous execution of Akmal Shaikh in China this morning is from a London-based “working girl”, who tells me she is boycotting all Chinese clients for a year in protest.

Please, spare me any sanctimonious injunctions about her chosen way of life. She’s doing what she can. And how many business people have decided today to withdraw their services from the Chinese? I think, in this context at least, she is acting with great dignity and self-respect.

She writes:

Dear Father Pitcher,

I read your article on Akmal Shaikh with interest. It says the Chinese will face serious consequences if the execution goes ahead.

I don’t suppose you will find the following consequences serious, but I know some people who will..

[She then includes a link to her website]

That site is probably not worksafe if anyone is monitoring your internet usage, but it is my advert on [she includes an escort directory]. I am an escort. I’m boycotting Chinese passport holders for a year if the execution goes ahead. I can pick and choose my clients and I don’t need any from murderous regimes.

I’m in two minds about those from Hong Kong, but will allow Taiwanese.

[She then signs with what I take to be a real name, followed by her working name. I include neither here because, at the time of writing, I don't have her permission.]

I love that equivocation over Hong Kong. On her website, not yet updated after Mr Shaikh’s execution, she adds:

Incidentally, if you are the holder of a Chinese passport you had better get your booking in tonight. After Akmal Shaikh, the mentally ill man, is executed tomorrow – you are on short rations for a year! In fact, no rations at all. Diu lai no mo hai, far as I’m concerned.

Could someone translate that Chinese for me? I reply to her as follows:

Dear [.....],

Good for you! I think that’s a highly principled stand – and I think that if everyone similarly did what they could by way of trade sanctions then we might make some progress with the Chinese.

Thanks for writing and have a very happy New Year.

And I mean it. The whole exchange is strangely uplifting and I’m really glad she wrote to me. Bless you, [consider your name here], GP