Tuesday, 29 December 2009
British based drug smuggler executed in China
The furore and diplomatic fallout following the execution of Akmal Shaikh continues unabated.
Being an opponent of the death penalty I closely followed the case of Akmal Shaikh. What was quite obvious from the outset was that the Chinese were intent on executing this man. After all, China is responsible for almost two thirds of judicial executions carried out in the world.
Anyone found in possession of over 50g of heroin in China faces a mandatory death sentence. Mr Shaikh had over 4000g in his possession when arrested so the outcome was predictable. The question is; was Mr Shaikh mentally ill, and if so was China right to execute him?
The reaction of British ‘liberals’ and the hysteria created by the media before and since Mr Shaikh’s execution warrants further study. It soon became apparent the pleas of mercy were aimed at playing on Western sensitivities and focussed very little on the actual crime committed. The Chinese suggest Mr Shaikh had no prior history of mental health problems, and to be honest everyone consulted by the media during the vigils and as ‘experts’ on the subject provided nothing other than opinions based on emotions.
Heroin is an evil drug. Unlike cannabis, ecstasy and other recreational drugs, heroin ruins lives and causes misery to all those who fall into its grasp. If China were to pardon Mr Shaikh, what message would that have sent out to the people of that country? Also, why were all the bleating liberals and do-gooders given incredible amounts of airtime over the last 24 hours? I never noticed the views being sought from the families of those afflicted by the scourge of this evil drug.
And finally, imagine Mr Shaikh was in fact a European called for arguments sake ‘Mr West’. Mr West was not accused of smuggling a deadly drug, but he was accused of promoting ‘racist ideas’ in a country where promoting racist ideas carries a mandatory death sentence. Would the media, liberal luvvies and politicians have still been falling over themselves to try and save the fictitious Mr West or would they have been steeped in sanctimony giving lectures on how the law in the country where the crime was committed had to be respected and upheld?