Jump to content

Akmal Shaikh


Dog

Recommended Posts

Despite whether you think Shaikh was guilty or not, I bet the amount of people willing to be drug mules and carry gear into China has gone down now.

 

Whether he was of sound mental ability is the only thing that should be questioned. The fact that the 4kg of heroin he was carrying is enough to kill 26800 people , I think China are well within their rights to give such crime the death penalty.

 

The harder countries are on the drug trade, the better, because it fuels a lot of the problems in society, but it's a shame that it's often the mules that get caught and not the brains behind the operations.

 

Here's a good example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8418878.stm

 

It's good to see though that the two girls just flatly admit they were stupid to get involved, not bleating on about their supposed human rights etc. No prison is nice, but I'm pretty sure a women's prison in Brazil is going to be particularly nasty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made a point about whether capital punishment is wrong, period......which according to your line of argument, is not if it is law in a given country.

 

Obviously, the death penalty is the sentence for drug smuggling in China and that is why nothing could have been done to stop it. But just because it is 'law' in any given country, doesn't make it 'right' (even though we have to abide by their laws when in their country).

 

For me, there has to be some alignment and sense of proportion between the punishment and the crime. I have no problem with the harshest of treatments for the harshest of crimes. Take Ian Huntley for example, he should be swinging from the gallows. However, in this case, the punishment was too harsh and on that basis I think it was wrong.

 

Yes it does...Sorry but 'No one' made you, or the 'UK' the Datum for which Countries around the World establish their criteria for right and wrong.....Sure, there's been some common influences over the years...Christianity and the English Magna Carta along with one or two other historical influences in the development of a more internationally acceptable set of common Laws and values, and more recently the UN have had a hand in trying to play God........But at the end of the day if any given Country decides something to be right or wrong...Then it's exactly that.....

 

You can only judge from your own postion...but you are wrongly assuming your's to be the defacto right one.

 

In fact I'd go so far to say that 'modern' British value's have drifted so far from the 'norm' of 'most' other civilised Countries, Brits would be the last peeps anyone would listen to, when it came to lectures on right or wrong.....Britain's tough stance on pettiness and complete capitulation to real crime has become quite a curiosity talking point around the World.....That's maybe why the World wide respect and standing that Britain once had, has long gone....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it does...Sorry but 'No one' made you, or the 'UK' the Datum for which Countries around the World establish their criteria for right and wrong.....Sure, there's been some common influences over the years...Christianity and the English Magna Carta along with one or two other historical influences in the development of a more internationally acceptable set of common Laws and values, and more recently the UN have had a hand in trying to play God........But at the end of the day if any given Country decides something to be right or wrong...Then it's exactly that.....

 

You can only judge from your own postion...but you are wrongly assuming your's to be the defacto right one.

 

 

You are right there St George. The good people of China overwhelmingly voted for their government, so who am I to question the will of the Chinese people?

 

Just because some fascist dictator or totalitarian communist regime makes the law in any given country, does not make it 'right'.

 

All governments make good laws and they make bad laws - some right and some wrong.

 

As it happens, the German people voted for Adolf Hitler, so does that make exterminating 7 million Jews right?

 

Of course not and therefore a law in any country (even in the UK) is not necessarily 'right' just because it is law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right there St George. The good people of China overwhelmingly voted for their government, so who am I to question the will of the Chinese people?

 

Just because some fascist dictator or totalitarian communist regime makes the law in any given country, does not make it 'right'.

 

All governments make good laws and they make bad laws - some right and some wrong.

 

As it happens, the German people voted for Adolf Hitler, so does that make exterminating 7 million Jews right?

 

Of course not and therefore a law in any country (even in the UK) is not necessarily 'right' just because it is law.

 

 

he never won a an election/got the required majority

 

he was second to hindenburg but then created chaos on the streets and forced his way in as chancellor...then, as they say, the rest is history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he never won a an election/got the required majority

 

he was second to hindenburg but then created chaos on the streets and forced his way in as chancellor...then, as they say, the rest is history

 

OK, fair doos.

 

But it doesn't change my point which is that just because something is law, it doesn't make it right.

 

In a democracy, the chances are that it will be more "right" than in your average communist regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I don't believe he has been 'handed over' yet but I do agree with you here. However it's worth reading this article in the Guardian, and particularly the final paragraphs that say:

 

"Many MPs privately admit that the home secretary is in a spot and right in law: there is nothing he can do except allow all legal options to be exhausted, including judicial reviews of the human rights decisions, both in Britain and Europe. He expects to lose.

 

Palpable unease remains, a mixture of distaste for America's political heavy-handedness and its bleak judicial culture, so unlike the TV courtroom dramas it exports. In that sense McKinnon is a bit like Amanda Knox, a beneficiary of the all too human impulse to say that foreign courts get it wrong."

 

Here's the article in full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/16/gary-mckinnon-extradition-to-us

 

Good News

 

Old but answers some good questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...