British Akmal Shaikh Executed, Chinese Netizen Reactions

Executed Briton Akmal-Shaikh

Please see our earlier post: British Drug Smuggler’s Death Sentence, Netizen Reactions

From Mop:

170 years later, Lin Zexu once again forbids England’s opium!

The highest court has authorised Akmal Shaik’s execution!

The English government’s secret entreaties are useless!

Akmal has been executed by lethal injection!

170 years ago Lin Zexu clearly saw the harm that opium was doing to Guangzhou, searched out all the opium dens, gathered together large amounts of first hand testimonies, and in the nineteenth year of the reign of Daoguang (March 1839) arrived in Guangzhou. On March 19th, Lin Zexu and other officials including Deng Yanzheng summoned thirteen rows of foreign businessmen, and let it be known to them that they were hereby ordered to hand over all of their drugs, and were to never again sell opium, even saying: “As long as there is opium, I will not return, I swear that I won’t stop until the job is finished.”

But the foreign merchants refused to hand over their wares, and after a long struggle, the merchants’ grip was loosened, and all of the opium, approximately 20,000 boxes or 2,370,000 jin, was confiscated. On the twenty second of the fourth month (June 3) it was all burnt on the beach in front of Humen in front of a crowd. In the eighteenth year of the reign of Daoguang, on the fifteenth day of the eleventh month, Lin Zexu was appointed imperial chancellor, and that year, 1839, was the most important year in the history of the banning of opium, and could be said to be Lin Zexu’s most brilliant.

Sometimes Lin Zexu once write a rhyming couplet in his office: “海纳百川有容乃大,壁立千仞无欲则刚”. This couplet’s imagery is vivid, and has a profound message. The first line sternly warns that one should listen to suggestions from all corners, and only then can something be done properly, and an unbeatable position can be assumed. The second is more tempered, when being a government official one must do away with personal wants, and only then can one be unmovable like a mountain, and stand tall. Lin Zexu promoted this kind of energy, commanded respect, and sets an example for his descendants.

And today, 170 years later, an Englishman has once again poured salt in our wounds!!!!!!!!!

Early in the morning of September 12, 2007, Akmal Shaikh of England, on a flight originating from Dushanbe, Turkmenistan, carried 4030 grams of “viper” on an international flight bound for Urumqi’s international airport, in Xinjiang. Upon going through border inspection, our customs officials discovered said “viper” in his carry-on luggage. After inspection, it was discovered to be of 84.2% purity.

Dammit, if you don’t die Akmal, whose soul will we use to honour Lin Zexu’s magnificent deeds?

China isn’t the China of hundreds of years ago!

Almost 200 years later the British government once again is acting out the same part!

But they have forgotten… China isn’t that desolate country any more!

When we banned opium in the past, our country’s power disappeared like the sun at night, when the guns were pointed at our heads, we were as nervous as dogs.

When we ban opium now, our country has the same position on drugs, but the guns of yesteryear are gone, but everyone’s whining.

Comments from Mop:

好想爆管理员的菊花:

Nowadays only we can sell drugs, you foreigners want to come here to sell yours and steal our business? Do you wanna die?

70mph:

Before, Lin Zexu burnt a whole heap of opium, the Brits started a war; today we’ve executed one of them, they can only whine in the background.

whatsoever啦:

That was just an act perpetrated by a single person, why do you have to overstate its significance? Do you want to see the world in chaos? I support the Chinese government’s judgment, and Lin Zexu was a great hero, but there isn’t much connection between the two.

sy_active:

I’d like to know the specific details [of the case]. Why did the English government feel it could meddle [in the case]?

lyg-boy:

What’s the big hype about this… people are executed by firing squad every day… we shouldn’t be attaching great significance to this execution.

a23696:

WHAT IS LZ TALKING ABOUT? COMPARING OUR GLORIOUS MODERN HARMONIOUS SOCIETY WITH THE CORRUPT QING DYNASTY!? YOU SCHEMING BASTARD!

我曾经是传奇:

Drug dealers should be killed, drug users also.

lilalai:

History is always complicated. We’ve gone through hundreds of years of history, and we’re at the same place we were 170 years ago! Old Mao said it best: “Imperialism doesn’t die in our hearts!”

Anonymous user 538851:

Prime Minister Brown, do you think that China is stuck in the times of the Opium war? You are an example of an undeveloped life form, an alien that has undergone genetic mutation, a high school student with the development of a kindergartener, a mongoloid inborn frog head, an abandoned infant at the top of Everest, the turd blocking the toilet, a dark descendant of Africa, hermaphrodite gorilla, a hippo squashed by Noah’s ark, the erupting mouth of a new volcano, the shameless sound of a barking horn, an Eskimo’s disgrace, a superman living with cockroaches, a rotting vegetable, a person made of rubbish who smells, the etymological source of the word “spurned”.

Don’t do drugs. For mind altering experiences, try chinaSMACK personals instead.

  • Old Laowai

    I support this action. But it is just small show. In Beijing – capital of China, face of China, in Sanlitun, and some other areas, in some nightclubs you can always find a lot of africans selling drugs. Everybody knows about it, but local police does nothing. So it was just a show, nothing to be proud of.

    • Chris

      A friend in China was in a city in Sichuan, I think, before he was in the same city as me. He said that there the cheif of police was involved in the drug taking, and the parties were all pretty wild.

      Getting caught with drugs in China is about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and knowing the wrong people. But that’s the same as many things in China – you get away with it until it is in somebody’s interests that you don’t.

      • http://arthur.translatorscafe.com Arthur Borges

        Sounds like my hometown Brooklyn, New York: Law enforcement agencies only have the elbow room to arrest and prosecute that elected officials will give them.

    • Hardlifeinchina

      “Old Laowai”
      do you have all your faculties right? Or are you sufferring of some mental illness?
      In China, business of drugs is forbidden. Do you think you are better than policemen working in BeiJing SanLintun?
      If you are a drug consumer or dealer, it s time for you to quit. Don t try to disturb people with your “racist informations”.
      I always walking in Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou main streets, and big pubs gates… people (or person) who always offering me “H-Shish, MArijuana, Extasy,.. and whatever, are not african at all. Look more chinese-muslim, chinese-southern,..and sometimes european french speaking.
      Maybe some black nigerians tried to involve into that deals.
      So when you claim that killing of that “bretton dealer” is just a show ‘coz african still free in beijing, … you may lost already some mental abilities!
      PS: please reduce your drug consumption and you will be less racist.

      • PolishEric

        Hardlifeinchina, You must be Chinese right??, Because old laowai is right, Everything in China is just for show, when so many Africans and Xinjiang get away with selling drugs

      • Michael

        Old Laiwai is right. Many blacks are in Guangzhou and Donguan selling all that shit. But you are right too. There are many Xianjiang muslims doing the same. Its always one or the other.

      • Tins of sardines

        “…Do you think you are better than policemen working in BeiJing SanLintun…?

        I would have to say that a fresh dog turd is better than policemen ‘working’ anywhere in China.

        • Joe Unlie

          No, no, let me correct that for you-

          a fresh dog turd is better than a policeman anywhere.

          At least the dog turd can fertilize the grass. You have to kill the cop first.

      • Tins of sardines

        “…Do you think you are better than policemen working in BeiJing SanLintun…?

        I would have to say that a fresh dog turd is better than policemen ‘working’ anywhere in China.

        • JP

          Funny first time…not so funny the second time

      • Stuz

        Dude lived in Beijing for two years, you need to see the optometrist, theyre as african as you are blind mate.

    • H4ns

      Hmm – nothing racy about speaking the truth:
      I was living almost 10 yrs in Beijing, and starting from 2003 I noticed a pretty huge stronghold of black guys in Beijing “Whaaazzz up, ma friend? ‘anna buy soooom sh’it? ‘asch-isch?”.
      Dude, I am not a racist at all – but Beijing nearly made me one..
      Sad but true.

      • sucker4lush

        If seeing a handful of black guys selling drugs was “nearly” enough to make you a racist, it’s already too late.

    • Promo

      Dude, u really know nothing about Africans. Do u know how many Africans executed by the Chinese government each year on drug related cases? I’m sure u don’t. They never make it public, but if u ae friends with any African, ask them and they’d tell u. Most African governments don’t give a crap about their ppl and just cuz one briton was killed, they want to make a big noise. I support the Chinese drug law and execution process of the offenders. I hope this can make those guys have a change of mind. Yes, i’m African and i’m nto proud of our tarnished reputation in China, but i must also speak the truth.

      • Joe Unlie

        Dude, selling drugs in China = cruising for a Darwin Award. It’s like walking down the street screaming “I hate niggas” in South Los Angeles, or wearing drag to a biker bar in Kansas. It’s just asking for it.

    • LOLZ

      LOL, sad but true. It was either the Africans or Uighurs, at least in Shanghai.

      Keep in mind though, this would not be a show or anything other than a routine drug dealer execution had the Western government not made a big stink about it.

      The Western government knows this too: China does not play to political correctness especially those coming from external pressures, and acts largely in its self interest. By spilling this out to the open rather than negotiating behind the doors the British government only ensured this drug mule’s execution. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to conclude this.

      The question is really for the British government: Why would Gordan Brown choose this time to bash China knowing that such public interference would certainly kill the drug mule? Does he really care about Shaikh? The answer is NO: he and rest of the British nation don’t give a shit about Shaikh (who lived in Poland for the last 15 yrs). Brown, much like the Chinese government, is hoping that nationalism generated through his idiotic pleadings would help his currently crappy political stance. The funny thing is it may have backfired: many brits actually think the drug mule deserves to die.

      • The Anti-Racist

        LOL how did this topic became Africa oriented? When it has nothing to do with Africa. And you say you are not racist? And also I would like to make some correction in this forum in Africa there are 53 nations some of which are bigger than many European states. So to say Africans is not only and over-statement but it is also and exageration. Now this guy that is being excuted why don’t we refer to him as European rather than British? Or are you just being pissed because the guy that was arrested was a British (white) and not black? I guess judging from your post that you would have rejoice had it been it was a black guy that was arrested and being executed right? Well sorry it is not so just get over it. Take a deep breath and relax.

  • Chris

    The OP is well-off target there – good to see some of the netziens pointing that out.

    There wasn’t anything secret about the British government’s entreaties – they did it all publicly to make it look as if they were doing something. I suspect that the British government knows that China doesn’t execute foreigners lightly, and that the case against this guy must have been extremely strong.

    We don’t have all the facts to this case, but there are lots of people, especially outside China, who are criticising this execution. The British government had its hands tied – had it pointed out the obvious, it would have been turned on by the British media.

    Its a shame that many Chinese can’t see the British governments actions for what they were – just lip-service paid to appease the media and the guy’s family.

  • http://www.cnreviews.com Kai

    That last translated comment is pretty hilarious. So was a23696′s comment.

    • gth793y

      What the Chinese netizens failed to realize(except for the OP and user 538851)is that:

      Akmal Shaik is actually a foreign operations officer entrusted by the MI-5 to infiltrate the strong and unified chinese society. His objective was to poison and weaken and moral fiber and ethical integrity of the glorious Chinese society with his imperialist made mind altering substances. The parliament and the crown thought this would be a good strategy, since you know, it work perfectly years back.

      And the real reason they are doing this is because they are pissed, the imperialists pigs are still pissed since Hong Kong has been returned to its motherland, they are still sour about that.

      But thanks the incorruptible and glorious People’s judicial system, this vast western conspiracy was stopped.

      It has nothing to do with drug trafficking is a highly profitable trade, and there are drug traffickers of every nationality every where.

      • Stuz

        I’m sorry did Akmel shaik give you the other suitcase? comments like that make me nostalgic for all those blistering hot intellectual minds I encountered while I was over there. Besides we got bigger fish to fry that the peoples republic of crap.

        • The Anti-Racist

          Really? Who are the bigger fish ?

    • luc

      赞! i thought that “mongoloid frog head” was right on the money

      • Soldier

        You don’t mean that the guy printed on RMB100 bank note is mongoloid frog head, do you? ^_^

    • http://www.maxiewawa.com maxiewawa

      Yup, it was a doozy wasn’t it! If you find some of the insults confusing, trust me, the original is just as strange.

      And a223696 was trying to be funny I think. Glad you found it hilarious, humour doesn’t always translate well!

  • Dest

    Well to be more accurate, from what I’ve seen on Canadian, American and British news websites with comments sections, most ordinary people supported this execution. The British government of course had to complain because it would’ve been trashed by the media, political opponents, and activists for doing nothing.

  • Edward

    The controversy behind the execution was not the fact that Akmal Shaikh was British, but rather that he was clearly mentally ill. He had a long history of erratic behaviour and dellusional beliefs, and all psychiatrists who looked at the evidence concluded he was bipolar. Anyone at all familiar with that illness would know that a sufferer is incapable of rational thinking, especially during a “manic” episode.

    Most civilised countries make legal allowances for mental illness, and at least officially, China does too. Unfortunately, however, it seems that Akmal’s mental health was ignored during the trial, and as a result, a mentally ill man was executed. This is a disgrace. Sadly, the Chinese coverage of the issue has conveniently ignored the mental health angle, and has instead decided to focus on pathetic comparisons with a rather insignificant conflict fought over 150 years ago.

    • Dest

      Wow, way to twist the truth (aka: lie), Edward. His family claimed he had a mental illness and a single psychiatrist POST-arrest, said he had bipolar disorder after spending 15 minutes with him.

      What’s strange is that he had NO documents of having a mental illness beforehand. He was NEVER diagnosed with having a mental illness before his arrest. If he did, his fate just may have ended differently. Why didn’t his family EVER take him to a psychiatrist to assess him for mental illness if they believed he had the problems that he did?

      Anyone can claim and act out a mental illness when facing execution. That’s why there’s a very high bar in even developed countries for claiming you have a mental illness during a trial, or else anyone can just act their way into a lesser sentence.

      • Edward

        Dest, I merely claimed that the psychiatrists who analysed the EVIDENCE presented by the British government concluded he was bipolar. You’re right when you say that Akmal never underwent an official check, as the Chinese court denied him this right. Exactly why they chose to do this is a mystery.

        In the UK, one can only be diagnosed with mental illness if one voluntarily chooses to go to a doctor. (That is, provided the illness is not considered to be a risk to others). One can only assume that Akmal chose not to go to a doctor, and being an adult, couldn’t be forced to do so by his family. This is all under the assumption he had a close relationship with his family – which we don’t know for sure.

        You have to admit that Akmal had a history of bizarre and delusional behaviour. Surely this entitled him to a psychiatric examination? When the death sentence is being considered, I would consider this a pretty basic right – especially for a man like Akmal.

        • Dest

          No, it’s not a mystery at all why they denied the mental assessment. Anyone can act insane and get a lesser sentence in the face of execution. Chinese law requires previous actual evidence of mental illness before conducting a mental assessment.

          He had none. His family fought for him a lot in the media, telling them about all the crazy things he did, yet he was never diagnosed a mental illness before. I find that ridiculous. The fact that he recorded some song and thought he was going to become a star is worth jack. There are MANY people like that in the world, and they aren’t mentally ill.

          For that matter, I have not read anything about psychiatrists analyzing any “evidence” and diagnosing a bipolar disorder. I have only read about a single psychiatrist talking to him for 15 minutes AFTER he was arrested. How psychiatrists could formulate a diagnosis without even being with the patient is beyond me.

          In any case, he went to China, violated their laws, and failed their mental assessment eligibility requirements.

          • taihanasie

            “Chinese law requires previous actual evidence of mental illness before conducting a mental assessment.”

            Do you realize how stupid this comment is? If previous evidence of insanity is necessary before a mental assessment is carried out, then there will never be previous evidence of insanity. Duh!

        • Dest

          “You’re right when you say that Akmal never underwent an official check, as the Chinese court denied him this right. Exactly why they chose to do this is a mystery.|

          Oh, and actually, I was referring to the fact that in his entire lifetime, he was never diagnosed with a mental illness. It doesn’t matter why not. I suggest you read up on the insanity defence in other countries. Very few people are even able to use it in cases in the US, and of that fraction, few are successful with it, and of THAT fraction, the vast majority were previously diagnosed with a mental illness.

          To criticize China over this is simply complete ignorance of the reality of laws around the world.

          • Edward

            The evidence I’m talking about does include the song you incorrectly dismissed as “jack”, but also a long history of delusional behaviour. You seem to be familiar with the case, so I’m sure you’ve read about his decision a few years ago to travel to Poland, while bankrupt, to set up a commercial airline. Having been made homeless, he began to bombard the British embassy, and indeed embassies from around the world, with 100+ page long rants written in 70point font about fictitious encounters with celebrities and politicians, conversations he’d had with angels, and his destiny to become a global superstar that would usher in world peace. This was, of course, prior to his decision to fly to Kyrgyzstan, of all places, to realise this dream.

            During Akmal’s opening court appearance, he denied being mentally ill, and subsequently launched into a rambling, incoherant speech that lasted 50 minutes. According to his family members, some of the judges broke into laughter during the more ‘amusing’ sections.

            The Chinese judges were presented with Akmal’s personal history, and were of course present during his court room performances. Now, I’m reluctant to argue with you, clearly an authority on world legal systems, but I can’t help but feeling that the evidence presented warranted a simple mental health evaluation. When dealing with a case where execution is a possibility, I believe that all avenues must be explored. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite content with the idea of putting a man to death to avoid a niggling bureaucratic procedure. I’d be interested to see if you had the same attitude if it was you administering the lethal injection, and not just while barking on an internet forum.

          • Dest

            Well, if it were up to me, I would ask for a mental health assessment only because the punishment is execution, but I don’t write Chinese law. The fact is he was punished under Chinese law, and they correctly interpreted the case under their law. It’s too bad for him, but he most probably could’ve been saved if somebody had done something about his alleged mental issues.

          • bleah

            In the UK they listen to a different drummer…

          • taihanasie

            “Oh, and actually, I was referring to the fact that in his entire lifetime, he was never diagnosed with a mental illness.”

            So, in your estimation, this means that he could not have a mental illness? If a cancer patient is not diagnosed with cancer, does he not have cancer?

    • LOLZ

      Clearly mental ill my ass. Think with that little head of your rather than repeating the same ol’ propaganda lines for once:

      If he were so mentally ill why didn’t his ever so caring relatives and his ever so “civilised” nation took care of him BEFORE he wondered to foreign countries and became a drug mule?

      Moreover, 4KG is a lot of heroin which could be sold at a very high street value. Drug dealers on the other hand are not nearly as stupid as drug users who tend to become heads of the most powerful and “civilised” nations. If Shaikh were such a retard as people like you love to claim, why would the drug dealers even trust him to carry over the drugs? Why wouldn’t the drug dealer find someone more competent to make sure that the investment pays off?

      Finally, the British government knows exactly what will happen to this guy. Since when has China ever caved to external pressure well? The moment this goes public you know that China WILL execute this guy just so that its government will not be seen as caving to the Brits selling drugs to China, again. The Brit politicians KNOW this, but are acting like your average trolls on Chinasmack to elicit a response from China on an issue which the Brit government knows it has nothing on.

      • Somethin Somethin

        hold the fuck on. A drug dealer picking someone “intelligent” to be their mule? What planet do you live on? A mules greatest asset is generally his willingness to be one. A mental deficency would certainly qualify. Desperation being a close second. This guy had both.

    • Teacher in China

      Nice argument guys. Informative and polite. Wish there was more stuff like this on Chinasmack.

      • The Anti-Racist

        Teacher in China, me too. Nice arguments void of insults and racism and name calling. That’s the kind of argument I like to engage in if I have the facts.

  • Kennon

    Akmal-Shaikh was born in Pakistan, he should have never been given citizenship to England.. The only mockery was the fact that he was considered english, just like all the other so called asylum seekers living in London…

    As for his death, you do the crime you do the time.. His time just happened to have run out. All those organisations trying to save one person, all the aid could of been diverted to his home country of pakistan and would of done much more good.

    Akmal-Shaikh was living a failed and miserable lie, he was declared bankrupt a few years ago, so this coon thinks he can sell drugs to the chinese to make ends meet.. Well you cant and now you are dead. Good riddance and Amen.

    • Comrade Kim

      Fuck off you scum filth. I’d rather take a loony drug smuggler as my compatriot than shit like you. Kill yourself now, you waste of flesh.

      • Keith

        what’s the matter with you? Kennon is right.
        If you think Akmal-Shaikh was doing anyone of us a favour than you better re-assess yourself because it looks like your a waste of flesh.

      • Kennon

        The only one with a problem Old Comrade Kim is you!!! If you don’t like what i have to say, then thats your problem, because i am not going to lose any sleep over it. The company you choose is your decision i do not care, at least i am still alive and not stupid enough to be caught with drugs in my possession.

        The only waste of flesh was Akmal-Shaikh, can you honestly say you would befriend someone who profited directly from the illegal drugs trade? Think of the pain and suffering he would of spread throughout this world, directly or indirectly who cares. The world was a better place when he died and if you are too bitter to realise that, you need your to asses yourself and wonder if you are one who really is the waste of flesh.

        • Kennon

          Also thanks for the back up Keith, i may of been a tad to extreme in the message, but it was just how i felt at the time. Anyway you are right Buddy, one less drug dealer in the world.

  • Hardlifeinchina

    Before Gordon Brown, condemns chinese government for the execution, he should condemn the late Akmal-Shaik’s family, to let such man travelling so far without any psychiatrist by his side.
    Actually his place could be an hospital not a plane travelling to china.
    His bag could be full of medicines and not contains 4kgs of drugs.
    Well, human life is sacred. Is it any drug dealer having respect of other’s life?
    Other countries need take example of punishment from the BeiJing staying government.
    Especially African governments.

    • georges

      The british government should shut up. The Chinese have executed a criminal and that’s good. How about the British killing and bitting up innocent children in Iraq and Afghanistan?

  • http://www.thosecrazychinese.com Westy

    It was another case of China making decisions today for some pathetic historical retribution. Akmal was a British citizen so the British government was obliged to fight for a fair trial, as it would do for any citizen. The Chinese government made absolutely no effort to give the man a psychological evaluation (which would have concluded his mental state once and for all), and gave their standard bitchy, throw-the-toys-out-of-the-pram “no-one has the right to comment on Chinese affairs.” The Chinese government knows that they can stir up some nationalistic hubris inside China, and now feels confident enough to ignore genuine international outrage. It’s just a shame that the British government didn’t actually do anything real to signify that this isn’t acceptable in a mutually dependent global relationship.

    • whichone

      Chinese law doesn’t allow for psychiatric evaluations unless there are prior evidence of mental illness, like someone pointed out earlier, the incarcerated have a lot of incentive to pretend to be crazy. China’s judiciary probably doesn’t want to set a precedence where anyone could asks for a psychiatrist with no other evidence. If an Chinese person is in the same circumstances he would also be denied psychiatric evaluation and executed, should the Briton receive preferential treatment by virtue of being the citizen of another country?

      I have never been to the U.K. but reading some of the blogs about this case it seems drug abuse is a big problem in Britain(I could be way off here), are British people naturally more inclined to do drugs or is it possibly related to the lax enforcement and punishment there?

      I recall when Michael Fay was arrested and caned in Singapore for graffiti, many people in the United States
      were also outraged and called Singaporean laws barbaric, but Singapore is graffiti free while if you visit the downtown area of any major city in the U.S. it would be hard to not to find them. Barbaric? maybe so, effective? yes.

      As for history, you may be right, fact he is British and he was smuggling drugs probably triggered memories of humiliating past. Even though one have really nothing to do with the other, it would be hard to find a Chinese person who did not mentally connect some dots. I don’t know whether or not this was on the judge’s mind when he issued the sentence, but the law did not give any leeway here.

      Foreign druggies, snort your stash before venturing into China, abandon all powder, ye who enter!

      Domestic addicts, support your local poppy farmers and drug dealers, buy domestic!

      • http://Www.thosecrazychinese.com Westy

        Drug abuse in the uk is widespread, but on different levels. Many people engage in soft drugs, but hard drugs like heroin or cocaine? I think something like 160 people died in the uk from cocaine abuse in 2008 – roughly comparable to the number who died from adult cot death. Our perception of drugs here is probably less important than our views on capital punishment and ‘fair play’.

        • whichone

          I have to say I am surprised by that number, but I wonder how many people died while growing, trafficking, and distributing these drugs soft and hard.

      • Stimpy

        Now I’m confused.

        It seems that just about every Chinese person that committs a crime in China has a mental problem.

        Or that just me?

      • Overseas Chinese

        I missed those Michael Fay days when Singapore stuck to its stand. Sadly, that was in the 90s. Nowadays, foreigners are routinely given lenient sentences for criminal offences. If Akmal Shaik did the same in Singapore today, the government would find some way to let him go to avoid trouble.

        P.S. Graffiti is now legalised in Singapore but you can only do it at selected areas.

    • Kennon

      Psychic evaluation or not the guy had illegal drugs in his possession, if he was so mentally unstable, then he shouldn’t of gone on such a lengthy trip.. The man was responsible for his own luggage, he was responsible for buying his ticket and he was well enough to get on the plane to china! Mentally unstable i think not, he had no other business in china other then distributing drugs, he knew why he was there… What would a psychic evaluation prove? just so he could escape the death penalty, play the sick card… They should of shot the poor bastard once he landed and the whole situation wouldn’t of been so long winded.

      Once again England is tarnished by the brush of asylum seeking residents, it has no real representation of English nationals and thus i see no reason why this man was entitled to any help at all, his real citizenship status is in Pakistani (they should of intervened not England)

      • Teacher in China

        “if he was so mentally unstable, then he shouldn’t of gone on such a lengthy trip”
        That argument doesn’t work well since a mentally unstable person can’t be expected to realize that he is so and thus stop himself from going on a trip.

        “The man was responsible for his own luggage, he was responsible for buying his ticket and he was well enough to get on the plane to china! Mentally unstable i think not,”
        Even though someone may be mentally unstable, they could be perfectly capable of performing all of those functions. Trust me, I’ve known quite a few mentally unstable people in my time, and half of them you’d never know it to look at them.

  • cnut flapz

    He was a Pakistani (a country that produces alot of heroine) and not British.

    Fit enough to own a passport/buy a plane ticket = Fit enough to be executed.

    fwiw, i dont agree with the death penalty.

  • Ray

    cho-co-late??????

    • Ray

      I bet no-one’s gonna get this joke….. :(

  • Peye

    ‘Crazy like a fox” as the saying goes. There are quite a few walking the streets all over the globe these days.

  • NuwayFollowMeeeeeeInsteeed

    Let’s get high. Let’s get high!

    I wake up in the AM. I get high.

    I get high all day till I pass out.

    I get high everyday.

  • NuwayFollowMeeeeeeInsteeed

    Do you think I have mental illness? Naw, I don’t.

  • NuwayFollowMeeeeeeInsteeed

    I may be crazy but I never got it checked officially. Maybe I should you know, just in case.

  • Cactus543

    His punishment seemed a little harsh to me.. Haha damn

  • overopensights

    I would say that 9 out of 10 British friends that I spoke with are in agreement with the Chinese government.
    It is the law of China and he should have obeyed it! I wish more governments were as resolute!
    Drugs and the pushers and users are a cancer on the world!

    • Kennon

      Well said old chap… and to add to your statistic I agree that he deserve all he got.

  • http://i49.tinypic.com/2cek3l.jpg PUSAN PLAYA

    Why exactly should “human rights” apply to Pakis? If they’re not blowing up British buses and girls schools, they’re smuggling smack and fucking their cousins.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

    “It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins”

    “British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population – they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.”

    Most real British people would love to see them sent back to the shithole they came from but if you say that in public you get called a Nazi.

    • chengdude

      Do you post just for the attention or to continually drive home the point you’re subhuman?

    • LOLZ

      You seem to be the type who would screw your first cousin if she were hot.

      • Tins of sardines

        I would screw his first cousin if she was hot.

    • Kennon

      Pusan, i think it would be more fairer to say, that there could be a immigration crises with all the foreign residents here in Britain. Your stats are valid but your argument isn’t, but you are right British people cannot say anything out publicly that would denounce a minority group, but if we want something done about a immigration crises then we need to go down the correct channels. If you are allowed the vote, then vote BNP, that is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. And as for human rights, if we like the rules of the land, im afraid all that can be done is to complain to the PM… Nothing else you can do.

      • Kennon

        if we don’t like the rules of the land, im afraid all that can be done is to complain to the PM… Nothing else you can do.

    • sucker4lush

      Inbreeding and drug smuggling? They must be trying to emulate European royal families and various modern intelligence agencies.

      They’ll never make it to the Hall of Fame in this business though.

  • Annoy

    lol… The anglo-saxon drug dealer during the previous century and a (probably) Muslim english drug smugger… they comparing them? I dont see the common ground aside from citizenship. yea, glory of the past again….

  • Mark

    I oppose death penalty in general and in any country.

  • Hopfrog

    Excellent comments Edward, unfortunately those of us who think this man should have at least been allowed a fair trial and an evaluation are in the minority amidst a screaming mob that wants blood. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    From everything I have read the trial lasted 30 minutes and he was not allowed to present evidence on his behalf. One of the common arguments I have seen at other sites is that because Akmal declared himself as not having a history with mental health problems or his family having a history then their is no need for it to be considered. This is usually followed by their next point being that he is a drug smuggler who would say anything to protect his own hide. I suppose if he would say anything to protect his own hide then that would include him claiming to be mentally unstable, which according to China, he did not. Further, the mentally ill aren’t usually trusted to evaluate their own mental health.

    So many are making this an issue about China and the UK, or about what happened 100+ years ago. This is about a system that felt 30 minutes was enough time to contemplate killing a mentally unstable man and not about wounded pride or redemption. The Chinese courts and the commenters here who are judging him without due process are making a lot of assumptions. Your assumptions may very well be right, but shouldn’t a man be given a trial and it be actually determined that all these assumptions are indeed true before you kill him?

    • whichone

      You repeated bring up the length of the trial as if somehow this is evidence for foul play or rushed judgement. The facts of the case – that he travelled to China carrying an obscene amount of dangerous and highly addictive drug – is not in dispute. The only argument here is his supposed mental disorder, which absent documented proof did not warrant psychiatric examination under Chinese law. The End. Should the tax payer’s money to wasted on further debates or technicalities to assuage social guilt of the priviledged who blab the “criminals as victims of circumstances” fairy tale?

      We internet warriors are making alot of assumptions, but that comes with the territory of couching behind a screen, the people who decide the case, as far as anyone knows, did examine these assumptions and followed the law. It is the British government that is asking for extrajudicial considerations.

      • Chris

        Should the tax payer’s money to wasted on further debates or technicalities to assuage social guilt of the priviledged who blab the “criminals as victims of circumstances” fairy tale? (/quote)

        To be honest, yes. It’s important for a that it’s proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the offender is guilty of the crime he is being punished for. That’s the essence of “innocent until proven guilty”

      • sucker4lush

        …and besides, “bipolar disorder” was the best they could do!? It wouldn’t be a mitigating factor even in the US, where we have the fairest system money can buy!

    • Observer

      I support this execution and petition the Chinese government to extend capital punishment to Christian missionaries, instead of deporting them. China would be a better place.

  • SadButTrue

    Why do western countries have so many drug addicts? Because the don’t act against them, dealers sit a couple of years and when they get out – guess what they do again.
    There is no effort at all to stop them!
    Brits and the Americans spread the Afghan opium around the world, its a big business.
    The 4 Kg Opium the Brit brought could have killed thousands of people. I have a lot of respect of the Chinese government to kill him. I wish my government would also act like this!

    • Hopfrog

      Without getting into a debate about capital punishment itself, feeling that drug dealers should be executed is one thing, feeling that suspected drug dealers should be executed without a proper trial is another. There is enough circumstantial evidence regarding his mental health and his claims of being duped to at least have given him a trial.

      If a mentally unstable man thought he was traveling to China to be a pop singer and was completely unaware that his suitcase had heroin in it, do you really think he should have been killed? Shouldn’t this at least have been considered at a fair trial? You have respect for the Chinese government for killing a man without giving him a fair trial? Shame on you.

    • cnut flapz

      Could’ve killed 1000s, true. ButI doubt the 4kg would’ve killed 1000s. It’s not in the financial interests of dealers to kill their customers.

      Your argument is disingenuous, simple minded and lacks nuance.

      In the real world, junkies die for many different reasons – overdose, impure product, HIV. All of which are the function of an unregulated trade.

      Drug abuse is better seen as a medical problem, with methadone projects, needle exchanges and health education. Take the profit out of this horrible trade.

      Yes, the colonial history of the UK is not very good regarding opium. But you guys got Hong Kong out of it :) Swings and roundabouts, my friend.

      • Jean

        i think what he meant was the it would have destroyed the lives of hundreds of ppl.

    • sucker4lush

      Slightly good point, but the punishment/nonpunishment of dealers has zero causality with our number of addicts.

  • http://Www.thosecrazychinese.com Westy

    I’m actually impressed, the comments here have been fairly intelligent :) it changes my view to know that Chinese law requires a history of mental health to declare a person incapable. I don’t think most English people support the execution (I’m English, in England so I have some experience…) but what I personally don’t like is the idea that he was executed without due care and attention. Remember, if he was not executed, were we calling for a pardon or release? No. He probably would have spent the rest of his life in a Chinese jail or a British psychiatric ward. The key difference is that we would have seen a man obviously in mental distress treated with dignity and humanity.

  • Developing China

    To all of you who think that he was given an unfair trial with only 30mins to give evidence. You have to remember that he got media attention for over 2 weeks before his verdict was given in court. Additionally he got visits from family to give their side of the story and also a British representative speaking on numerous occasions with their “evidence” that this DRUG DEALER was indeed mentally ill but with no success. I’m sure China had more than enough time to digest all this information and come up with a verdict. Rushed verdict? Pleeeeeeeeeeease.

    This man was given more than just 30mins to try and have his fate changed. In this case he was just another liar trying to wiggle out of the system and didn’t.

    • Hopfrog

      Media attention is not the same as being able to present evidence at your own trial which he was not allowed to do. How does media attention play into this? I cannot be sure that the judges in this case tried this case by watching media coverage and I certainly would hope they wouldn’t do that.

      We are to assume that after a 30 minute trial the Chinese courts had enough time to digest all this information? Or we are to assume all the judges spent their free time digesting 2 weeks of media coverage? Your assuming an awful lot to be “sure” of this.

      • Developing China

        I never said I assumed they made their decision by “watching media coverage” read my post you idiot. I said it was in the media for over 2 weeks so I’m referring to the time line.

        You’d be stupid to think that they’d walk in and sit down totally ignorant of what was going on before sitting in the court room with the culprit. You’re the one who’s assuming a lot from my comment.

        • Hopfrog

          You never clarified your reason for mentioning the media coverage in your original post. I was left to assume, at least I can admit it.

          Thanks for resorting to namecalling and I have my own opinions regarding your intellect. I think you’d be pretty stupid to assume a court that wouldn’t even allow a psychiatric evaluation of a clearly disturbed man would be ignorant free and fair.

          Stick to namecalling, you clearly don’t have the courage to admit when your wrong or argue objectively.

        • Jim Mao

          Now I may not be a big-shot, fancy city lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that a fair trial is supposed to be approached from square one. That is to say it is the job of the courts to blank out any media circus that may be swelling around the case, to ignore the baying mobs outside and online and step by step examine the case in a fair and impartial way. The timeline before the case ought to be in no way related to the trial itself.
          However there ought to be a reasonable portion of blame placed on the UK’s handling of this case. It was irresponsible to approach this issue in the way that they did by having MPs publicly denounce China. This is not the way to get results. Anyone that has been here for any length of time would realise that the best way to deal with this situation would have been the subtlest way possible. If I were to be cynical I might suggest that the Uk was more interested in headlines and media support than it was in saving this man.

      • sucker4lush

        Exactly. There are no rules of evidence in PR. So his family could’ve said anything… and the best they could come up with was BD?

        Again, even if he had it, not a mitigating factor.

  • Centrist

    When you are in any country, you have to obey the laws of that country and suffer the consequences if you fail to obey the law. I agree with him being found guilty, I only disagree with the fact that China refused a mental health examination.

  • Jay K

    as others said earlier, and me jsut restating what they had said; this guy deserved the execution. heck it was already humane by lethal injection since china’s usually does nothing by firing squad.
    the brits of course have to complain and lodge protest it’s one of their citizens and any country should defend their citizens, or else face mass hysteria from the media and public outcry.
    as far as beijing’s concern of drug trade, i don’t mean to be stereotypical but everyone knows its the africans who are doing this in sanlitun. the last time i went to poacher’s alley who always comes up to me, the africans see if i want to score weed. i personally don’t care for the stuff since it makes the penis soft when i try to glide it into my pillow with a hole in it.
    as far as the original post by the chinese guy about this issue, he made it too dramatic and over-extended the bridge to bring a gap of back then to now seem logical which has no point at all except the historical value of drug trade. other than that nothing else.

  • Joe #2

    I oppose the death penalty on principle, but it’s hard to say that this guy isn’t deserving.

    Having over four kilos of opium, he was clearly out to sell it. If the Chinese government hadn’t executed him, one of the rival drug gangs probably would have. Furthermore, mental illness was never much of an excuse to me. Unless you can show that it’s treatable, the fact that he’s mentally ill only makes him an uncontrollable danger to society. It’s unfair to everyone else to let such a person walk free. Prisons exist to protect us, not merely to dispense justice.

  • chengdude

    He was a drug mule, not a drug dealer. Homeless dudes with dreams of recording a pop song to promote world peace are not drug dealers; they are easily duped pawns…or maybe just plain desperate.

    If the law was followed, so be it. Kill the rooster to frighten the monkey and all that. Too bad the people who enabled Mr. Shaikh will never be caught and likely another 4KG of heroin crossed the border while everyone was debating this topic.

  • Old Laowai

    Somebody asked me, do i have experience about China? Buddy, i live here 5 years, and i know, if you have enough money you can make everything. maybe you dont like it, but it is true. The reason why africans are still selling drugs is very simple, they just pay fees to local police, and it is also the true.
    And this executed guy was not British by his nationality, just got passport. But UK tried everything to protect this citizen. If you will get in same troubles in any European country, do you think your China will help you? Lol

    • whichone

      Translation:
      Someone questioned whether I really lived in China because sometimes I just open my mouth and nonsense comes out. I bring up a non sequitur followed by a vaguely racist statement that is tangential to the point I am trying to make.
      I confuse myself about citizenship and passport, before taking pride in how hard my government failed to interfere in another country’s business. I raise rhetorical question on whether or not Chinese government would fail equally as hard in analagous situation. Finally I laugh out loud as proof of my mental retardation in case I am caught with drugs in the the future.

      • http://www.cnreviews.com Kai

        Dayum, that’s hella hardcore.

        • whichone

          heheh, thanks, and “hella” sounds nostalgic, guess you can take the man out of norcal but not the other way around.

          Now that I think about it, it’s kind of silly and he is probably not even from Britain, -_-; problem is thinking while interneting is a difficult multitasker, unlike reading and shi*****.

          …oh what the hell, I mean shitting.

    • swatdowg

      Well, since you do know the final retailers arround beijing(or at least the obvious ones), but you still haven’t try to check how many of them are executed by the shooting squad or the most important “HOW do THEY GET THEIR PRODUCTS IN THE COUNTRY”…

      Then I think we don’t have much to whine about the Chinese judiciary trial proceadure and the final veredict at this point in time.

      By the way “WHICHONE” I can’t agree more with every approach you have made about this issue so far.

      • FOARP

        Go to Yunnan and walk around in the countryside a bit, you’ll see drugs production like you wouldn’t believe. Hell, why do you think they used to call it ‘China White’?

    • LOLZ

      Money talks, bs walks in any nation. Drug dealers are well protected for a reason.

      But you are stupid if you think UK did everything it could to save this man. By bringing this case out and bashing China in public the UK government only ensured that this guy would be dead. If Brown really wanted to save him it would be quite simple to do so behind the doors.

      If anything, this whole episode just spells it out to people that the British government would rather score political points rather than saving a man’s life. But let’s be REALLY honest here, no one gives a shit about Shaikh.

  • US Laowai

    I support this action. China takes a serious stand against drug smugglers which is commendable. It is too common that those sentenced to death suddenly have diminished mental capacity therefore should be spared punishment.

    • Hopfrog

      He didn’t have “suddenly have diminished mental capacity”. If you bothered to actually look into the story before you decided to talk out your backside you would have known he has been mentally ill for years. But thanks for sharing your uninformed opinion, it carries a lot of weight.

      http://www.reprieve.org.uk/2009_12_18_akmal_shaikh_new_evidence

  • FOARP

    I have worked on the peripheries of Chinese civil law, but I will admit that I know little of Chinese criminal law. That said:

    1) No psychiatric examination was allowed, although there was good cause to believe one necessary.

    2) A system which does not allow for previously un-diagnosed mental illness to entered as a defence (with the appropriate safeguards against fakery) is not one which defends the human rights of the mentally ill.

    3) Application of the death penalty in this case may have been correct under Chinese law, but this law does not respect human rights as I recognise it.

    I have little to say for Akhmal Shaikh except that he was either an insane man who was duped, or a criminal who knew what he was getting himself into, and that we will never know which of those he was.

    I personally favour a liberal approach to drugs, and abolition of the death penalty, but I recognise that these opinions are not held by others, or reflected in the law of other countries.

    • fireworks

      So long as you have international organized crime syndicates working together with the drug producing countries eg Myanmar (Golden triangle), Columbia, Afghanistan with the distribution gangs e.g. Italian Mafia, Bikie gangs in US/Can, Nigerians, Chinese triads and Yakuza, its going to be tough to eradicate the drug problem from society.

      Customs and border protection agencies in all countries look out for people who recently come from a trip from Vietnam, Myanmar (Golden triangle), Columbia or Afghanistan as they are all high risk countries and always people attempting to bring in drugs from those countries.

  • dilladonuts

    you guy’s are all a bunch of corny wankers.

  • 土老板

    If he did suffer from a disorder it would make him normal by the locals’ standards; therefore not a valid reason to get him off the hook.

  • luc

    Viper use in developed and developing countries are two different things.

    People in developed ones are *supposed* to piss away their money, health and power.

    People in developing ones are supposed to hustle and become a unstoppable, inevitable force of change.

    Empires crumble.

    So yeah right on lin zexu, keep viper out of guangzhou again. And Akmal, 爆他的菊花!

    It’s that part of you that feels bad for a crazy guy, feels outrages at a legal system, and sort of likes doing drugs yourself – that’s what China has no business messing with right now. Check back in 30 years.

  • SadButTrue

    @Hopfrog
    What would you have done if they caught your family members with 4KG(!!) opium? Of course you would have told any story to get them out, right?
    The family could not produce one piece of evidence that the guy was retarded. So what do you expect?
    @cnut flapz
    “But you guys got Hong Kong out of it”
    I don’t own HK, I am European btw.”
    Even if it would have only killed one person, I’d prefer a drug trader to a person making a stupid mistake in trying hard drugs. I know people who died because of this s**t. No traders, no opium, no problem… it is really that simple!

    But my main point is that the organizers of this whole thing (that are Americans and Britons) make Billions in the drug trade
    (!!) and China is making an important stand!

    • Hopfrog

      @SadButTrue, If one of my family members was a sane person who was fully aware of what they were doing then I would let them live with the consequences. The family was not trying to prove that the guy was “retarded” they were trying to prove he was mentally ill. Your not really making any point.

      China has a painful history with drugs and China making an “important stand” against drug dealers may or may not be what has happened here. The man was mentally ill and by not even administering an evaluation, China did not appear to even consider that he was mentally ill and may have been duped.

  • SadButTrue

    You will find many interesting results on Google, have a go!
    e.g. :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
    “It was alleged by the Soviets on multiple occasions that American CIA agents were helping smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, either into the West, in order to raise money for the Afghan resistance or into the Soviet Union in order to weaken it through drug addiction. According to Alfred McCoy, the CIA supported various Afghan drug lords, for instance Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.”

  • LAOWAIXIAN

    HI I AM BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKKKKKKKKKKKK!
    China is only trying to protect its poeple and finding a way of saying: you LAOWAIS do not think you can come here here and shit all over the place, THIS IS NOT EUROPE OR AMERICA.

    • hitman

      Why do you Laowais think you can do anything in another country without consequences?

  • malagebi

    He was bipolar, not retarded. Fuck him.

  • overopensights

    Prime Minister Brown probably intervened to maintin the British Muslim vote. His thoughts are probaly the same as most Brits; ‘Play big boys games, then accept big boys rules’

  • usapanda

    It’s funny that the bars and clubs I’ve been to in China have lots of open drug use and sales in them. Nobody there is getting arrested, least executed. This is another game of international politics playing out.
    If England (and Europe) is so unhappy by China’s actions, they can protest it by not buying Chinese products. Hit them in the wallet. :)

    • LOLZ

      Drug dealers should boycott China.

  • Nin Jiom

    WTF ! , Think about it people , I’m sure there are some border check points where stuff can go through easily , but the amounts available for sale around major cities totally surpass’s that supply , so who recruits the foreigners ?

  • bc

    As usual chinese commenters are fanatically nationalistic and full of a sense of victimhood and post-colonial bitterness. They need to get over themselves, and they need to get over the past, and start behaving like a grown-up country.

    • overopensights

      Well said old chap! as a frequent traveller of China, I read what you are commenting on almost every day in the English version of ‘The China Daily!’

      I like the Chinese but they really do have to get the past out of the way, in order to see clearly the good road that lays ahead of them.

    • LOLZ

      Just wondering, do you tell to the African Americans that they should get over themselves about the past too? How about the Jews? Israel’s handling of Gaza is hardly “mature”. Do you tell jews that they should forget the past and grow up too?

      I get it, people from Western nations abide by something called Political Correctness, but why doesn’t PC apply to China?

      • bc

        OK, so you’re comparing the Chinese to the Jews (and implicitly the holocaust) and African Americans (and implicitly with slavery) – this tells me all I need to know about your massively inflated sense of victimhood.

        Going on about western nations is a non-sequiter. If you must know I think Israel needs to grow up too, and their treatment of palestinians is certainly disgraceful – but you jsut raise that as a smoke screen anyway.

        Two wrongs don’t make a right. “Poor poor china, beaten in a war nearly 200 years ago by nasty pig dog foreigners. Thus we are justified in treating Tibet in exactly the same way if not worse” – no, the state of China is just a massive hypocrite and so are its fanatical apologists.

        “Poor China, so abused. Can’t people see that we are justified in doing these awful things, because western nations commit them too?” – stop seeing everything through your post colonial lens and decide what is right and wrong yourself, without reference to your hypocritical sense of injustice and without reference to what other nations do. That’s growing up.

        • http://www.cnreviews.com Kai

          bc,

          I don’t agree with everything LOLZ says, but I don’t agree with your response here.

          You responded to the translated comments in this post by characterizing their authors as “fanatacally nationalistic and full of a sense of victimhood and post-colonial bitterness”, “as usual”. You then said they “need to get over themselves, and they need to get over the past, and start behaving like a grown-up country.”

          LOLZ responded to you by asking you if you’d say the same thing to African Americans and Jews and then made a comment about political correctness. I don’t think it takes a genius to figure out that he is accusing you of being a hypocrite or, at the very least, accusing many Westerners (or maybe just Americans) of being hypocritical.

          Now, you’re calling China a “massive hypocrite” as well, in addition to dismissing those who disagree with you as being “fanatical apologists”. There’s more, but I’ll get back to that later.

          First, I agree with you that a lot of Chinese commenters need to start behaving more maturely, or “like a grown-up country”, though what defines “grown-up” may be a subjective trap (cough, Hongjiang, cough). But yeah, I think some Chinese people and the Chinese government often trots out some embarrassingly stupid and infantile arguments.

          But I see this:

          OK, so you’re comparing the Chinese to the Jews (and implicitly the holocaust) and African Americans (and implicitly with slavery) – this tells me all I need to know about your massively inflated sense of victimhood.

          …as you evading the thrust of LOLZ response to you. You criticized Chinese commenters, and he’s criticizing you back, alluding to the hypocrisy of Western commenters like yourself. You then return the favor. This is name-calling. Both of you are simultaneously right and wrong, depending on who you apply the criticism to.

          LOLZ isn’t denying that Chinese commenters can be immature, or that they have a sense of victimhood. I don’t see him saying their victimhood justifies their treatment of others either. That’s you putting words in his mouth. He’s simply pissed off, feeling that some people selectively apply the “get over the past” admonishment. He’s suggesting that people selectively trot out that admonishment depending on the target, hypocritically using it against some people but not other people on the basis of what is politically correct.

          That’s a reasonable point and criticism, is it not? Just as your point and criticism is reasonable when applied to the right target? His criticism is just as true as your’s is, just as both of your criticisms are not true when applied to those innocent of it. You found inspiration in the translated comments to apply your criticism, LOLZ found inspiration in your comment to apply his.

          Is it difficult to acknowledge and agree on this?

          Next, you’re misrepresenting the point behind LOLZ question as to whether you’d say the same to African Americans and Jews. His comparison is not about magnitude of victimhood, his comparison is about how those who feel victimized are respectively treated. He’s not saying the Chinese have suffered a Holocaust or institutional slavery (arguable on this one), as you misrepresent, he’s saying your criticisms of the Chinese can also be applied to African Americans and Jews…and so he’s “wondering” if you would treat them as you are treating the Chinese, if you would demand the same things as you demand of the Chinese.

          He’s asking you to deny what he assumes to be your hypocrisy. Do you feel the same way toward African Americans and Jews as you do towards the Chinese? All three of these groups arguably display some engrained sense of victimhood whether you feel it is justified or not. When you tell one to shut up, stop wallowing in their victimhood, get over the past, and grow up, you’re definitely going to get someone asking what your criteria is for dispensing such advice.

          So what is it?

          Instead of offering it, which might actually disarm LOLZ, you accuse him of having a “massively inflated
          sense of victimhood” which doesn’t advance the discussion or disprove his accusation. You merely repeated your initial gripe. On the other hand, him thinking you’re a hypocrite doesn’t substantiate your accusation that he has a sense of victimhood.

          Going on about Western nations is NOT a non sequitur except in the minds of those who want to artificially limit the target of discussion and criticism to China and the Chinese only. This is a blog populated by people of different backgrounds and nationalities. When one nationality/ethnicity starts criticizing another nationality/ethnicity, you’re going to get people crying foul and demanding fairness over hypocrisy. Get used to this just as Chinese people need to get used to the fact that, yes, they’re going to get criticized on the world stage. When you attack someone, someone’s going to question your attacks or attack you back. This is how society works, right?

          So you think Israel needs to grow up. How about African Americans? If you think they need to grow up too, how easy it would’ve been for you to shut LOLZ up, if you just said so? You would’ve proven that you’re not a hypocrite and he’d be forced to simply disagree with you. Instead, you press on, trying to pin something on him that he didn’t deny.

          You accuse his accusation of your hypocrisy as a smoke-screen. A smoke-screen for what? For admitting that some Chinese people wallow in their sense of victimhood? An attempt to deflect attention from your target of choice in a discussion between different nationalities/ethnicities? What?

          Rather, we can argue that your response is a smoke-screen for defending your consistency in admonishing people with victimhood complexes to grow up. LOLZ took issue with you and turned the spotlight back onto you, you felt uncomfortable, and you’re turning the spotlight back onto him not by proving him wrong but by accusing him of putting the spotlight on you at all. You’re both defensive. EVERYONE is defensive in these situations.

          I don’t think LOLZ said two wrongs make a right, did he? I don’t think he said China and the Chinese are justified in “treating Tibet in exactly the same way if not worse”, did he? I don’t think he ever asked why people can’t see that Chinese are justified in doing these awful things BECAUSE western nations do them too, did he?

          You’re putting words in his mouth, trying to advance a hypocrisy argument against him as he advanced against you. How was his response, the one you’re replying to, seeing anything through “post colonial lens”? He is his response NOT deciding “what is right and wrong” by himself? He, himself, by himself decided that he didn’t like what you’re saying, what you may represent, that it was wrong, that hypocrisy is wrong, that hypocrisy on the basis of political correctly is worthy of criticism and contempt. He decided this by himself, without reference to any hypocritical sense of injustice or what other nations do.

          He accused you of being a hypocrite. You accused him back, albeit by planting words of hypocrisy in his mouth. Now what?

          I said I’d get back to your “fanatical apologists” characterization. How would you like it if all Chinese dismissed Western commenters as “self-righteous hypocrites?” I indulge in that myself at times, in the same exasperation as you. Sometimes we have to, to comfort ourselves when we can’t make any headway in a disagreement, but you do see how uttering that is a discussing-ender, right? What made you think LOLZ is a fanatical apologist? Is it what he stands for or what you think he stands for? How is that different from him assuming you’re a hypocrite by questioning whether you’d say the same things to African Americans and Jews?

          What is your goal? Is it to help China grow up or is it to have the freedom to tell China to grow up as you please? One is somewhat benevolent, the other inherently selfish.

          • bc

            Well, I apologise for allowing my comment to become so polarised and emotional, you are right to say I shouldn’t throw characterise people as fanatical nationalists unless I am sure. However, I don’t think jews or african americans really come into it at all, which was the point I was trying to make. First, LOLZ can’t accuse me of “hypocrisy” because I haven’t made clear what my position is on jews and African Americans. If Jews and African Americans go around constantly defending everything they do not on its self-evident ethical basis but rather based on some revenge or sense of victimhood from the past then that would be just as worthy of being called out.

            I don’t see that there is any hypocrisy charge to be answered there, it is just a diversion. You might be able to accuse western states of hypocrisy on similar issues, but you can accuse most any state of hypocrisy on similar matters. I didn’t hang out a sign saying “I’m an acolyte of the West” after all.

          • http://www.cnreviews.com Kai

            bc,

            No, African Americans and Jews don’t come into what you were trying to say, the point you were trying to make: China needs to grow up.

            But they do come into what he was trying to say, the point he was trying to make: People who say things like you say them selectively, against some but not others.

            Yeah, he changed the subject, shifted the spotlight onto you, but you do see how silly it is to think you can demand that he sit there and play by your rules and artificial limits on who can be targeted in a discussion or criticism, right?

            And his point is relevant to the greater discussion involving non-Chinese on Chinese issues: Hypocrisy is freaking annoying. No one likes being criticized for something they see the person criticizing as also being guilty of.

            The key here is not jumping to the fallacious conclusion that the person accusing hypocrisy is trying to justify their wrong. Yes, some people may do this, but be sure they say something to that effect. The vast majority of the time, they’re just seeking some understanding instead of what they feel is unfair and hypocritical judgement. Indulge in the latter and both sides are going to have their dirty laundry dragged out.

            It shouldn’t be a contest of seeing who is worse, but so often that’s what it is because the participants, more often than not, make unreasonable comments because they derive a measure of validation by disassociating from a negative and associating that with someone else. The hypocrisy arguments come out all the time when this happens.

            LOLZ accuses you of hypocrisy because he assumes you’re like many other people who have proven themselves to be hypocrites JUST AS you assume he’s a fanatical apologist who is gearing up to justify/excuse Chinese wrongs with victimhood. Technically, he asked you what your position is on Jews and African Americans. He gave you a chance to respond, though I agree he commented as if he already knew the answer. Yet, you still had the chance to set him straight and you did, in part, with your response about what you think of Israel. However, like I said, you gave him more ammo by not simply disappointing his assumption. You committed the same sin as him.

            Look, I make the same mistakes too. It’s very easy to typecast people who disagree with you on contentious issues or over controversial statements. I’m not addressing you because I’m not prone to the same mistakes, I’m addressing this phenomenon because I see it as a major roadblock towards some actual meaningful, intelligent, and properly nuanced discussion about China and the issues that involve China.

            I think you would’ve shut LOLZ up if you just stated “Actually, yes, I’d say the same damn thing to African Americans and Jews if they wrote something like the above, if they abused and invoked their historical victimhood in such a way. Let me try to explain why I think that is the case here…”

            Of course, that’s predicated on whether you’d actually say the same damn thing. Only you know that for sure. But again, as you’ve typecasted LOLZ, he’s typecasting you. His response, in question form, was testing you, which, admittedly, is smarter than him immediately accusing you. He has a hunch and he’s seeing if you’ll prove it right.

            The hyporisy charge is there because it’s one way for the accuser to determine where the discussion is going to go next. If you deny it, then you’re dismissed as a self-righteous hypocrite out not to help anyone but only to express your own contempt. If you acknowledge it, then you’re showing that you might actually have principles you care about and work towards that aren’t limited by race, ethnicity, or nationality. You’re implicitly saying you’re falliable too and you two are on the same level. Everyone wants to feel they’re being talked to on the same level, instead of being talked down to.

            It isn’t a diversion. It’s an all too common litmus test, even when people don’t consciously administer it as one. The people who think it is a diversion are usually those who selfishly want to artificially limit the blame and culpability of some ill onto their desired target. One thinks “fuck, we’re talking about YOU, not ME!” except the other person is sick of hearing the one talking shit about them. When you reach that point, the discussion is already over, and it has already degenerated into mud-slinging and smearing each other. Was that the original goal of starting the conversation?

            That’s why I asked the final question I did in my last response to you.

            Yes, we’re all hypocrites in one way or another and likely in mostly the same ways. Same for our countries and whatever group we identify with or are associated with. I think LOLZ implicitly understands your frustration with victimhood being exploited, but you should understand his frustration with hypocrisy as well. You guys, hell, we all need to start from certain basic understandings like these.

            Unless our goal is just to spew contempt and protect our freedom to do so. For some, that’s the case.

  • NuwayFollowMeeeeeeInsteeed

    Alot of the commenter here are hypocritical that they refuse to acknowledge that other side of the issue, which is, you westerners are just like us. Just look at the typical net commenters from the west and the east, not so different now are they (ex: look at the dogs fighting comments).

    Oh wait, that’s right, it is okay for the West to subtly reinforce negative stereotypes in every damn thing they do to the point where “hating” on chinese people is nothing (LOL). Of course you guys so superior.

    I hate America. The End.

  • ralphrepo

    Whether he had broke Chinese law or not, only officially took a half hour by a group of Chinese judges to determine. What do people really know about these judges are? I’m not going to belabor the point, but those who are really interested in the state of jurisprudence within the PRC, should research how someone is named to be a judge, and what academic qualifications are required, and what constitutes the trial process. The results that you find will be frightening. Many of these “judges” have absolutely no legal training, the majority don’t even have any sort of degree (much less one in law) and the bulk of them pass rulings on the cases presented to them in accordance with CCP expectations; that is, they rubber stamp the party’s determination as to whether someone is innocent or guilty. This is essentially what is meant when Chinese scholars discuss the PRC’s legal system as a rule by law (the law is used by a select few to control the masses, they themselves are never subject to it) rather than a rule of law (the law is applied equally to and for all).

    The problem is, absent a reliable legal infrastructure, there is no real way of comparison to that other nations. One cannot assume that a “fair trail” within the PRC means the same as the accepted process of other nations. Thus, whether he broke Chinese law or not, is really debatable, even as it is immaterial. Here’s why; if one really looks upon the statement made by the Chinese spokeswoman, it really didn’t have anything to do with the man’s guilt, innocence, or frankly, even the smuggling of drugs. The statements made by the Chinese official (from Yahoo):

    Quote: “…But in Beijing officials remained defiant. “China has fully protected the defendant’s litigation rights,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters. “We express our strong dissatisfaction and opposition to Britain’s accusations. We hope the British side will face this case squarely and not create new obstacles for China-Britain relations,” she added.”

    Notice what wasn’t said; litigation rights and legal rights are separate and distinct from one another; they are not interchangeable and I suspect that the PRC is fully aware of this. The problem here is that this viewpoint can thus affect and be applied to the entirety of all Chinese living in China. The point made here is, that the Brits just wanted to free one delusional man back into their care, while the Chinese government’s problem isn’t so much of the drugs, but the road towards ensuring fair and legal rights in trials for ALL Chinese litigants; and THAT it is NOT willing to do. Hence, the Brit got the same justice that any Chinese in China can expect from their legal system. I know that many of the respondents here could care less about one nutty Brit, but how about the tens of thousands of Chinese condemned to death, and executed each year from this system? I find it amazing that the Chinese government was thus able to con even it’s own people into thinking that this was a national sovereignty issue; defending their honor against the evil white man, who had notoriously brought opium into China so long ago? LOL… I can’t believe how people can be so gullible.

    Lest anyone thinks that this is an issue of westerner trying to be above the law, the issue of white men or woman (North American, European, Australian, etc) being incarcerated for drug offenses in other countries is not rare. Frankly, it has been going on so much that they actually made a movie called Midnight Express back in 1978. Nowadays, plenty of hapless Anglos grace the lock ups of Thailand, Brazil, Malaysia, Turkey, Mexico… so the idea isn’t all that novel. If you do the crime, you should do the time, and sometimes that means death. People can accept that. What is hard to swallow here is the Chinese pretense of a fair trial. The people who should remain most frightened by this of course, are us Chinese.

    • LOLZ

      What’s the point of a legal system anyway? Is it to emulate other legal systems or is it to curb crime?

      If China’s legal system is successful to curb drug usage, crime rates, etc. then it’s doing its job right. The last time I checked China has a low drug usage and violent crime rate per population comparing to many advanced developed nations, and definitely most developing nations.

      Looking at how often criminals in the western nations get away with their crimes and their ill gotten wealth (hidden in Swiss accounts, of course), before you argue that China should learn more from the Western justice systems, shouldn’t you at least explore how effective the said justice systems are?

      • http://www.cnreviews.com Kai

        LOLZ, you’ve made a lot of good points elsewhere but I’m afraid you shot yourself in the foot here.

        Yes, the point of a legal system is, in part, to curb crime, NOT emulating other legal systems. Good point.

        The problem with your argument here is that you’re actually suggesting that China’s legal system is successfully curbing crime when there are too many high-profile and widely-known examples of it NOT doing so. I’m not saying the system hasn’t worked in some way or even effectively in certain types of crime, but this argument just isn’t persuasive enough and you should’ve left it at “meant to curb crime, not emulate others”.

        Drug usage rates and crime rates are like almost all statistics in China, notoriously unreliable because the government controls the gathering of them. Even absent that fact, there are the confounding factors of them not being reported for one reason or another, like being settled under the table, thrown out or expunged through connections, etc.

        It’s also really hard to point at how often “criminals in western nations get away with their crimes and their ill gotten wealth” when so many foreigners and ESPECIALLY so many Chinese will instantly think of corrupt businessmen, coal mine bosses, organized crime lords, and (get ready for it) government officials doing the exact same.

        Of course, what you highlight about crimes and criminals in the West isn’t made untrue by the sad facts of crimes and criminals in China, but I just don’t think this was a good avenue of argument for you to have walked down. You’ve put yourself in an easily compromised position, rhetorically, and those who disagree with you are liable to exploit this to fallaciously discredit you and then the rest of your arguments, many of which are sound and reasonable.

        • overopensights

          Are you a lawyer kai? if not you ought to be!

          I was a soldier in Hong kong in the 1960s. Triads and drug dealer were quite active there. I do believe some were executed, I cannot remember any ‘Hue and cry’ from mainland China or anybody else, a long time ago however.

      • ralphrepo

        LOLZ asked: “What’s the point of a legal system anyway? Is it to emulate other legal systems or is it to curb crime?”

        Therein (in the above comment) is illustrative of what many Chinese don’t understand. They claim that the “Chinese system doesn’t need to emulate other systems so long as it curbs crime.” I actually agree with this precept wholeheartedly.

        However, the Chinese system was never intended to curb crime; it was created purely to curb dissent and public unrest. The court system in the PRC is but one of many tools of public control that the CCP regularly uses.

        Again, if this one foreigner got himself a fair trial, then everyone else in China would start demanding one too. And THAT, they CAN’T allow. If judges became independent and trial really were fair, the CCP would easily crumble under the weight of its own corruption. In other words, applying the law in the way that it was meant to be applied, is actually a threat to the survival of the Party.

        Frankly, Chinese law is actually fairly straight forward and reasonable, even when compared to the western model. However, the application of it through the Chinese court system renders law moot, Chinese or otherwise. Law itself becomes meaningless as the judge’s final decisions are almost always directed by the needs of the CCP.

        So, in essence, the Chinese legal system is a de facto extension or end point of the CCP’s political decision making process. It has nothing to do with law or crime prevention at all.

        • whichone

          ralphrepo you have made great points with your original comment but I think your cynicism and disdain towards the state of Chinese law and the CCP in general is frankly so overwhelming it borders on the unreasonable.

          No doubt the communist party is interested in self preservation, but it should not be too difficult to imagine that the vehicles of such preservation involves keeping the people content. To say “Chinese system was never intended to curb crime” is specious and hardly logical. The interest of the public is not diametrically opposed to a monolithic communist cabal as you suggest, rather it is in the long term interest of the CCP leadership to combat corruption within its (extremely large) ranks and crimes within the society, and one of the ways it can achieve this is through an independent judiciary.

          Moreover I don’t think a lenient treatment for a foreigner will become the lighting rod of public demand for judicial reform that you seem to think, you underestimate the public’s existing desire for equitable rule of law and the effort of a many who labor for reform in the constitution of China not the least of which was the inclusion of private property rights a few years back – a sure sign as any of inevitable change to come.

          You accurately pointed out the pathetic under qualification of many jurists in China today, but again where you see a orwellian plot to control the public, I see the result of cultural revolution where many subjects in universities were prohibited and the great majority of students chose a few apolitical degrees which did not include law. If the CCP really had absolute control of the courts, I would think the most prudent and party-preserving option would have been to quietly acquiesce to British government requests and lock Akmal Shaikh up instead of executing him.

          —-

          it’s like 4 in the morning here and I’ve had way more corndogs and beer tonight than anyone should, so if there stuff that don’t make sense, just skip it and pretend it isn’t there, I know I will tomorrow.

          • ralphrepo

            Ah, finally someone with an informed opinion that can disagree without the miasma of nationalism and ad hominem reactions. I sincerely thank you for your comments.

            Political cynicism only comes about after prolonged and repeated exposure to an inertial state of affairs. The court system in the PRC really fails to have the independence that is needed to render fair judgment. I agree with your assessment that academically, the entire legal profession was chilled as a secondary effect post Cultural Revolution. I recognize too, the small changes that have taken place with infusion of recently graduated, but academically qualified lawyers and some jurists. This alone holds tremendous promise.

            However, where it matters, the hands of the court remain tied to party concerns. An example would be the Sichuan earthquake redress issue; thousands of grieving parents remain hounded by police, and even their lawyers have been threatened, or told to “back off” by the state. The crime likely committed (as least there is wide public perception within China of this) was the embezzlement of construction funds; less costly or likely substandard building supplies being substituted, which likely had a serious impact in the total number of school children deaths across the entire earthquake affected region. How such a matter can avoid prosecution, much less to be not exhaustively investigated, is beyond me. But my guess is, the party says so, so that’s the why and how, and the courts will duly comply. The pervasive avoidance of such cases, along with court avoidance in the milk scandal case too, is public knowledge.

            My original statement of the “Chinese system was never intended to curb crime” you deride as being specious and hardly logical. Forgive me, but IMHO, that is exactly the extant state of affairs, and it can be partially explained by your other statement, that “The interest of the public is not diametrically opposed to a monolithic communist cabal…” with which I agree. There are many instances in which the needs of the party and of the people become coincidental (like overlapping subsets), so that both have common and vested interest in certain matters. It is only when the public interest diverges from or opposes party thought or state process, that the real intent of the court system then becomes apparent, because in court, the party never loses. Hence, would it be really that unreasonably cynical to assume that the system’s primary purpose is protect the party rather than to curb crime? I think not. Should we, as rational and reasonable men who hold to ideals of fairness, regard such a system with disdain? I would certainly think so.

            I wholly agree with your assessment that a long term solution and the party’s best interest lies in having an independent judiciary and in fighting corruption; but there in lies the rub. The party can only control the masses through its network of thuggery, influence, and fear. Hence, an independent court system would obviously threaten the party as we know it. A recent example of this is the showy public trials now ongoing in Chongqing:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6357024/China-corruption-trial-exposes-capital-of-graft.html

            This particular case is emblematic of what the party has become, and that situation is suspected to be have been replicated in just about every major Chinese city. Thus, instead of being outsiders railing against the corruption and excess of the controlling powers (like the Qing and KMT that came before it), the party has literally become the corrupt controlling power. If the CCP was ever indicted under US federal law (as unlikely as that would ever be, but used here as an illustration), they would be prosecuted under the Racketeering, Influence & Corrupt Organization statutes that were designed to fight the crimes of mafia syndicates. China suffered during the Qing and Nationalist rule by its prolonged failure to reign in corruption, and now the CCP is likely to fall on that same sword. Its hands are in so deep and the lines of influence extend pervasively so far from top to bottom that severance of crime ties would be impossible without some sort of wide spread amnesty structure. Given the Chinese public penchant for flesh engine searches and massed anger, the CCP has gotten itself onto the tiger’s back and doesn’t quite know how to get off. One the one hand, it knows what it must do, on the other it knows that it can’t afford to, else it may harbinger the demise of the CCP as we know it. I think for this reason alone, the CCP was reluctant to release the man back to British hands, even for “humanitarian reasons” (which plays better abroad than domestically). The Party rightly read that the people would have been likewise offended had the foreigner been let off scot free. But that left it a Hobson’s choice didn’t it? So it was thus forced into the political corner of having to execute the man, since it shows that they were treating him the same as ever other Chinese.

            Lastly, back to your original remark of my being cynical, it may be interesting for you to read this last bit from the above link:

            “…Outside the Number Five courtroom, however, not everyone in the crowd is so optimistic. Yu Jingqing, a 72-year-old grandmother who lives nearby, expressed doubts that the ties between the government and the gangs have really been broken. ‘Look at Wen Qiang. He is the godfather, so why is he being put on trial outside the city? He will probably get off. Why was his brother not arrested. What about his son. What about his properties. Is he moving his wealth overseas? There are still plenty of criminals out there’”

            So pass the corndogs and I’ll have a chilled one too if you can spare it. All this talk salty political talk is making me thirsty.

            Cheers.

  • Zebadee

    I don’t condone execution as an appropriate method of punishment in any country, However, it is the law in China and drug traffickers must understand that if they’re caught then there are consequences to be faced.

    This guy wasn’t stupid. He knew the consequences of crossing a border carrying drugs and he got caught. Would the sentence been any different in some other Asian countries? I think not. Why should China be an exception? I have to, together with the great majority of British people, agree with the Chinese government’s decision on this matter.

  • Shanghairocks

    One British was executed and it made a NEWS. Thousands of Chinese are executed every year; they make no news. What a Hippocratic human society.

    • hitman

      I wonder if a chinese commit the same crime in UK, will the chinese government intervene? I guess not…

      • Centrist

        That’s because Westerners value human life more than Chinese. And our governments work harder for our people that your government.

    • LOLZ

      China executes a lot but it also has the largest population. I think Singapore has the highest execution per population and most comes from drug mules actually.

    • VeerLeft

      Hippocratic? I think you mean hypocritical?

    • http://arthur.translatorscafe.com Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou

      Um, if it makes no news, how do you know it happens.

      Names, dates and places are welcome!

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    A lot of people have been saying that the court was right not to allow a psychiatric examination without prior evidence of a mental disorder as this would allow criminal to falsely plead insanity after the fact. This makes no sense:

    1) Psychiatrists are not easily fooled.

    2) Even if you believe that a criminal could fake insanity, what do you believe would stop them doing it before the crime so they could have their defence ready for the trial?

    3) Insane people confess to crimes which they did not commit all the time. Are you saying that, where no prior evidence of mental problems exists, the court should not submit such a person to a psychiatric exam to see whether their plea is genuine?

    4) It is quite possible for mental problems to remain undetected for a long time, or for them to suddenly appear following, for example, a head injury or shocking/traumatic experience. Are you saying that where such a problem appears, and the person concerned commits a crime without their condition first being properly diagnosed, that there should be no examination to see whether they were mentally disturbed or not?

    • whichone

      I was one of the people who said the court acted in accordance to law when they made their decision to not turn over the death sentence.

      1. Could be one way or another…so, okay.

      2. I do not claim to have some keen insight into the criminal mind, but common sense reasons why criminals would not take prior insanities include:
      – They do not believe they will be caught, or they would rather not think about it. This is not as absurd as it sounds, we are all marching towards death from the moment of birth yet many if not most do not contemplate death because it is dreadful. Drug dealers do not rationally think about the day when they are caught.
      – They are not exemplars of those who demonstrate keen foresight, probably very few bothered to consult actuarial tables on average life expectancies of a drug dealer or employed reason to examine their career outlook, or else likely a different profession would have been chosen.
      – Practicality. It takes more than a visit to some drive-through psychiatrist to establish a credible history of mental illness. Drug dealer’s boss probably does not look kindly to a lackey who regularly goes to a psychiatrist, might terminate lackey’s position. Severance package is usually a bullet. Moreover, suppose illness is firmly established, there is a good chance psychiatrist might try to detain and ship said lackey to an asylum or ward. “Just kidding!” probably would not convince or amuse the psychiatrist.

      3. Akmal Shaikh did not confess to the crime. So this is sort of besides the point.

      4. His supposed lifelong mental illness was not a sudden condition, nor was it mentioned at the first trial and only brought up during appeals. A person with a sudden or temporary insane episode can plead insanity at trial court for psychiatric examination but not after losing the case and wants to try again. The appellate court did not see evidence of life long illness as claimed by the attorneys enter into evidence, therefore no psychiatrist.

      • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

        1) So you don’t actually believe that they are easy to fool.

        2) This is a point of law we are arguing. You are saying that not allowing psychiatric exam after the fact prevents false insanity claims, but on a point of act this is wrong.

        3) Once again, this is a point of law. From this it can clearly be seen how allowing testing for insanity after the fact is actually desirable under many circumstances, and therefore why denying it in this case is wrong.

        4) But the decision of the court of first instance is not final, and should be overturned if there is evidence that it was it was in error. From this and the above points it is clear that not only was this case potentially unjust, but if this reasoning is followed in future it will lead to further injustice. You seem to be assuming that an insane person will recognise his insanity, a moments reflection should tell you that this is very often not the case. It is the duty of the court to protect such people.

        • whichone

          I believe you and ralphrepo have convinced me, to the extent that although the law was carried out in this case, the law itself is deeply flawed and in need of reform.

          He probably should have received psychiatric evaluations if not on merits of evidence then at least out of a utilitarian calculus of public welfare for future considerations. I am however still dubious of Akmal Shaikh’s mental illness. If he wanted to plead affirmative defense like insanity he should not wait to appellate court after he lost a negative defense at trial, seems like trying to have two bites at the proverbial apple.

          In any case, thanks for the comments.

  • ChinaJim

    Point 1-
    The nationalism in the youth is frieghting.Exactly what the Western powers want which is to stoke a new Cold War which will provide unlimted military funding in the U.S. and drive U.S. manufacturers back home as well.

    Point 2- When we we stop the Anti-British Opium War crap. The truth is Opium was already very popular and grown everywhere in the South of China. The British just imported the “High End” for a niche market. You don’t think Chinese could learn how to grow opium?
    The foriegn Devil concept was used to consolidate the governments drug trafficking and kick out the competition.

  • Blaaaah

    Typical Chinese mob mentality. Blood thirsty animals. Whether or not the guy was genuinely mentally ill becomes a moot point if the government don’t even allow a proper analysis in the first place. That’s the real misjustice. Give the people what they want though. Foreign blood, hyped up nationalism in the name of ‘our beloved motherland’, and a sense of misplaced pride at the government flexing it’s muscles in the face of an old colonialist. This country is fucking doomed, and the hilarious thing is, its ignorant masses can’t see it coming.

  • Blaaaah

    @shanghairocks, you’re a fucktard.

  • HZ Laowai

    This a good day for China. This lets other nations, foreigners and the world know that they are not immune to the laws of China. China is a World Power and it’s about time that us foreigners are in the same check as the Chinese. This shows that we are equal and not above the laws. Total Props!

    • ralphrepo

      Total Props? Don’t you get it, man? They kill one foreigner, but behind the scenes the same system kills tens of thousands of Chinese every year with the same sham courtroom process. In other words, what you’re cheering on is the system that indiscriminately kills lots of Chinese people. Total props… NOT.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»