China: A History of Human Wrongs

The long-standing issue of China's appalling record in human rights is finally getting the attention it has required for many years. Why? - Because for the first time in over fifty years, China has executed an EU national.

It is appalling that Akmal Shaikh, a 53-year-old, father-of-three, from London, has been executed after being in custody for the past two-years. This is despite pleading his innocence and reportedly suffering from a mental illness. Mr Shaikh's grieving family tried their best to appeal to the Chinese authorities but no assessment was ever carried out on his mental state. He had, apparently travelled to China after being promised by drug dealers that they would make him a pop star in the country. They then duped him into carrying a suitcase that did not belong to him and that contained just over 4 Kg of heroin.

The Chinese authorities say that this amount of heroin is "enough to cause 26,800 deaths". This was a case of serious drug trafficking, according to the Chinese embassy. So, is it fair to assume that, like several other countries, China merely has a strict judicial policy towards drug smuggling and that execution is a last resort? Was Mr Shaikh's case being used by China to send out a message to other drug-smugglers, demonstrating that they will be dealt with severely if caught? The simple answer is no. One only has to look at the statistics to see China's disgusting and shameful record in human rights. Amnesty International estimates that in 2008, China was responsible for 72% of all executions across the globe. Over 1700 people killed, usually by gunshot, in the name of justice. Those executed were not all murderers and drug dealers either; there were at least sixty of those people that were convicted of crimes such as tax-evasion and embezzlement.

Amnesty has been appealing for action on China's record of disregarding human rights for many years. They highlight cases such as that of Zhao Lianhai, whose "crime" was to campaign for justice after his son was one of many made ill by contaminated milk powder in 2008. Zhao was arrested at his home on 13th November this year. He is being detained at the Daxing District Police Station in Beijing, where he is in grave danger of torture and abuse.

Another prominent charity, Human Rights Watch, reports the case of Liu Xiaobo, who as a leading intellectual, had already been imprisoned for almost two-years after the "Tiananmen crackdown". He is currently under arrest and awaiting trial for “incitement to subvert state power”. In simple terms, he is judged to have been critical of the government and the party in articles he authored in previous years and by contributing to “Charter ‘08,” a political manifesto that calls for China to adhere to its responsibilities and commitment to human rights.

Liu has been detained without charge for over a year and faces 15-years in prison. His trial, which was due to begin on December 23rd, will be held in closed court, his wife and other supporters have been warned to stay away and have been placed under police surveillance.

Now that China has openly abused the human rights of a 'Westerner' the issue is finally getting the attention it has deserved for a long time. China needs the support of the international community if it is to develop as a nation, it relies on trade with the west and is looking to place itself at the forefront of world affairs. It is essential that the rest of the world acts and unites in disgust at this latest flagrant disregard for justice and humanity. World leaders must assert that only nations who demonstrate respect and commitment to human rights will be permitted a seat at the table.

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown released a statement saying: "I condemn the execution of Akmal Shaikh in the strongest terms, and am appalled and disappointed that our persistent requests for clemency have not been granted.

"I am particularly concerned that no mental health assessment was undertaken.

"At this time our thoughts are with Mr Shaikh's family and friends and I send them our sincere condolences."

Foreign Secretary David Miliband added to condemnation of the execution, reiterating that the UK is opposed to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances. He also expressed regret that in the case of Mr Shaikh, "mental health issues, and inadequate professional interpretation" had been ignored.

A spokesperson from the Chinese Embassy stated that "The legal structures of China and UK may be different, but it should not stand in the way of enhancing our bilateral relations on the basis of mutual respect."

No expression of regret, just the inflated ego of a regime that has gotten away with crimes against humanity for so long that it now thinks it can continue to do so openly. Asking for respect after an action such as this is an insult to international diplomacy and the international community.

My condolences to the family of Akmal Shaikh, may he rest in peace.

TChee's Christmas Twessage

I was asked to post this on my blog for people who did not manage to see it at the time. At 3 PM on Christmas Day, I addressed the nation via Twitter - a Christmas "Twessage" (ahem) as it were.  The hashtag was #tcheesXmasTwessage and it was spread over fifteen tweets. I have compacted it here for ease of reading.

Good afternoon everyone. Christmas is a time when, regardless of faith, we can celebrate together. Often, that is purely a celebration of being with people who are important to us. For some, that may be family for others, it is friends who provide the stability & comfort that is traditionally associated with family.

The modern world has changed relationships in every aspect of our lives, from those we are born into to those we choose. Today, I am sharing Christmas, not only with my closest loved ones, but also with people on social networks such as Twitter, who I have come to regard as friends & of whom I am very fond. I know I am very fortunate. There is a saying I often use: “You are never alone with Twitter” & it is true. There are however, many people who are not so lucky.

There are people who are alone, for whatever reason, who need help and support all year round, not just at Christmas. There are soldiers, in foreign countries, people in developing nations and even in our own country, who for a variety of reasons do not have the care and support they need.

The measure of any society is how they treat the least among them. The poor, the unfortunate and the misunderstood. As we enter the year 2010, when there will be division, argument and elections, it is important for us all to remember that the basic principles of human kindness, the things that unite us, not only as a nation, but as a species are far more important than the things that divide us.

With that, my husband @CllrTim & I, would like to wish you all, a very merry Christmas & a happy & healthy 2010.

Bercow Vs Dorries Vs Bercow

My husband, (Cllr Tim Cheetham, @CllrTim) and I have many differences, some of them, such as religion, are quite fundamental. We often disagree on policy and other political matters - we discuss and debate frequently, sometimes we even argue about such things.  There is however, one thing we would never do and that is to tell one another what we can think, do or say. We have a marriage that is based on partnership, equality, love and mutual respect. 

For a wife to be expected to subdue her beliefs, to hold her tongue and to be no more than an accessory to her husband's position is insulting, submissive, sexist and harks back to the 1950's, when many women held exactly this position.  It is therefore astonishing that the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries would like Speaker's wife, Sally Bercow to play exactly that role. Ms Dorries has forged ahead in her career, enjoying benefits obtained on her behalf by the women's movement.  The fight for equality and recognition that women had to (and in some cases still do) endure is exactly why she is able to hold the position she now enjoys.

In June Nadine Dorries blogged about campaigning against John Bercow's election as Speaker of the House of Commons and how she would do her best to ensure it was the shortest served appointment in history. One of the main reasons she cited for her opposition was Mrs Bercow, she said:

"...the Speaker’s wife, should he have one, plays a very important role. We have all seen how often Speaker Martin’s wife has been named in the press over the years. John Bercow’s wife is reported to be a socialist. Does this matter? I think it does, a great deal."

In The Times today, there is an interview with Sally Bercow, in which she admits to a "work hard, party hard" lifestyle during the 1990's.  She says that she hopes to run for Parliament as a Labour candidate and the interview was her way of getting anything that might come back to haunt her out of the way now, on her terms. Essentially, she was clearing out her closet. At the end of the piece is a comment from Nadine Dorries:

“How can we ask the people to trust us, when the man who holds us to account has such poor judgment that he allowed his wife to give such an appalling, self-obsessed interview?”

Excuse me? ALLOWED his wife??? 

I for one do not believe that the Bercows have the type of relationship based on a Master and his submissive wife.  That type of set-up would not have endured the years that they have been together, with both of them holding political ambition.  I imagine, like Tim and I, the things they have in common are much stronger than their differences and again, like us, the mutual respect they have for one another is something that makes the Bercows' marriage stronger.

Nadine Dorries has reaped the rewards of the women who fought for her right to work and achieve.  For her to now turn around and use her position to imply that a woman's place is at her husband's side, keeping her opinions to herself and merely being his supporting and adoring spouse is a slap in the face to every woman who ever had to stand up and say "Enough!"

PS. I did not clear these opinions with my husband before I wrote this piece, nor would he ever ask me to.

Class politics are dead. Welcome to the politics of wealth.

Is anyone really taken in by David Cameron's "man-of-the-people" act? For as surely as a fat man in a red suit will be hanging around every shopping mall over the next few weeks, it is an act. The first time I laughed out loud at Dave's attempt to sound more 'street' was when he tried to reassure us that his wife was quite common because she had attended "day school". AND, did you know she was (in her own words) brought up "outside Scunthorpe"? Considering this was on the 3,000-acre Thealby Hall Estate, that does indeed lie "outside Scunthorpe", it is like Prince Charles saying that he was raised near the East End and is actually a Cockney.

Recently, Mr Cameron unveiled his official portrait. Of course, we all have one of those don't we? I'm not talking about a nice snap taken by the visiting school photographer or a wedding pic, this is a painting by Jonathan Yeo, son of former Tory minister Tim Yeo. Yes, Cameron - just like you and me! My portrait hangs above the mantle in the drawing room don't you know!

Attempts to portray the Tories as being like us ordinary folk has taken a bit of a hammering recently. Cameron aside, there's Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative PPC for Richmond Park, who has admitted to having non-domicile status. Zac inherited his fortune from his father, Sir James Goldsmith in 1997 and since then, he has enjoyed the trappings of a super-rich lifestyle, travelling the globe between his family's homes in Devon, London, Marbella, France and Mexico. (Not that I'm attempting to cast aspersions on his green credentials or anything, but I am slightly curious as to Zac's carbon footprint, him being the Conservative Leader's Green Advisor and all... but I digress.)

Then of course there is Annunziata Rees-Mogg, a woman whose name alone sounds so posh that Dave asked her to reinvent herself as 'Nancy Mogg'! She refused and the claim has since been denied and passed off as a joke by Conservative HQ. I don't buy it. Cameron tries so hard to appear less privileged and tries desperately to project this onto his party members, such as famously instructing them to hide the champers if there was a camera around at the Conservative Party Conference.

More than 50% of David Cameron's shadow cabinet are millionaires. It is something he would like us to ignore, he's somewhat embarrassed about it and would like it if we were to pretend that it doesn't matter if one has come from a privileged background. It is where you are going to that is important, he tells us. That would be fine, if he and his chums were creating policies that were beneficial to all of society, not just to the rich. The next government will have to make tough decisions, Cameron reminds us, there will have to be cuts; there will have to be sacrifices and lean times. Obviously not for his mates though. When they inherit Daddy's wealth, their mate Dave will have ensured they pay as little tax as possible on it by raising the IHT threshold to £2Million for a married couple.

The truth is, David Cameron and his Tory chums are nothing like you and me. They are super-wealthy, super-privileged and super-out-of-touch with the daily trials of the average working voter. This is not a class issue, it is an issue of wealth and the Tories looking after their own. Class politics may indeed be dead but the politics of wealth will always be an influencing factor in policy making in the modern Conservative party.