Executions of British citizens abroad and the extradition of British citizens

Let's be clear about this, I am strongly oppposed to the use of capital punishment (i.e. state executions) under any circumstances. Such judicial punishments are formally prohibited in the UK and throughout the whole of the European Union and in many other countries, too.

However, the writ of the British government and of the European Union is severely limited. Other countries have quite a different view (and laws to back it up) on the whole topic of capital punishment - notably the US, Iran and China, to name three, albeit three of the better-known (not to say 'notorious') examples.

Today a British citizen has been executed in China, having been convicted of drug smuggling. The fact that he was smuggling drugs seems not to be in doubt. It is contended by those who pleaded for clemency in his case that he was 'tricked' into carrying a suitcase containing 4 kilos of heroin into China. Some trick! It is further contended that the executed man was mentally unstable and that his [undoubted] crime should be judged in the light of this. To put it crudely, we are being asked to accept that being mentally unstable should be a 'free pass' to commit crimes in other countries and not suffer the punishments that those other countries consider appropriate. Try telling that to the US (or Iran) the next time it executes someone on what we consider ill-judged grounds and see how much notice it takes!

Quite frankly the British government has enough trouble on its hands with its [perfectly deplorable] habit of trashing our own legal system and diminishing the rights of UK citizens within our own borders (things over which it actually has some control), without trying to 'lecture' other countries how they should run their own judicial systems.

Whilst I deplore today's judicial exceution of Mr Akmal Shaikh in China, I do wish the British government would use its political capital on things over which it actually can have some influence, rather than making empty gestures in matters where it succeeds only in making itself (and us) look silly and ineffectual. I refer specifically to the case of Gary McKinnon, a British citizen currently under threat of extradition to the USA and which our own Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, says he has no power to halt on medical grounds. Remind me, which British government was it who committed us to a decidely lop-sided Extradition Treaty with the US? Oh yes, our present Labour government!

Both Mr Akmal Shaikh and Mr Gary McKinnon have been said to have been (in the case of the former) and be (in the case of the latter) suffering from schizophrenia (i.e. what is I understand also known as a 'bipolar disorder') - see (*) below. So it is OK to send Mr McKinnon across the Atlantic to the [not always so very] tender mercies of the US judicial system, because the US is supposedly a fellow-democracy, albeit the country that permitted Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib to happen (with its use of 'water torture' and other, to put it brutally frankly, crimes against humanity), but not OK for a sovereign country such as China, which happens not to conform to our 'prissy' notions of democracy, to follow its own judicial path?

Or what about our oh-so-ethical British government that allowed our knee-jerk unequal Extradition Treaty with the US, supposedly designed to help reduce the risk of terrorism, to be subverted by using it to allow US authorities to pursue British citizens whose only 'crime' (if it is ever judged as such) was against a British company in Britain? I refer of course to the 'NatWest three' who were extradited some time ago to the US on frankly spurious charges (so far as the US is concerned) seemingly with the sole aim of using pressure upon them to get them to implicate others.

Basically we have a British government that makes loud noises about protecting British citizens' rights in situations which it cannot alter, but singularly fails to protect the rights of British citizens when it has the power to do so. And we wonder why some Chinese refer to Britain as a 'paper tiger', or why Britain has today been told by Iran's government that it will have its 'cheeks boxed' if it doesn't shut up?

Why does our current British government even bother? It has, quite frankly, not the faintest notion of what conducting an effective dipolmatic policy entails and its notions of an 'ethical foreign policy' make me want to retch! If the actions of our present Labour government did not make us all, in Britain, look so silly and pathetic I could laugh if it concerned some other poorly-governed country, rather than our own - as it is, all I want to do is have a drink to deaden the horror of being led by such donkeys!

Now to calm myself down after my rather too habitual (of late) 'ranting' against our ineffectual shambles of a Government, may I just remind my fellow British citizens that the ability of our government to protect us when we are abroad is very strictly limited; we no longer live in an era when 'gunboat diplomacy' will be used to rescue us when we do, or are accused of doing, something wrong according to another country. I've visited and lived in a number of coutries which have very different notions to us on matters of crime and justice, including both China and (just to take a couple of other random examples) Malaysia and Thailand. I vividly recall the landing form I had to complete the first time I visited Kuala Lumpur and which bore a red-printed warning about the punishment for 'drug-trafficking' being death; I knew about this beforehand, so I wasn't surprised, but it still came as something of a shock to see it in print. The definition of 'trafficking' was for amounts in excess of 50 grams, if I recall correctly, just as in China. Four kilograms is eighty times greater than that!

Put simply, if you can't do the time (or suffer the consequences, however unfair we may consider them to be) don't do the crime! It really is that simple. Otherwise stay at home.

(*) - a commenter has kindly corrected what I wrote about the mental disorder from which the executed man was said to have suffered; the commenter writes "No. Bipolar is what used to be known as manic depression. Schizophrenia is a level of mania well beyond." However, I do not believe this affects the basic premise of my article.

Iran protests grow in intensity - several fatalities reported

It is not clear where the current bout of protests in Iran (in Tehran and other cities) will lead, but already there are reports of several fatalities, including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi - reports from ABC (Australia) and the BBC.

Some videos of the protests taken in Tehran earlier today (from "Persianwarriors" YouTube account):





"Khamenei murderer"


"Death to entire regime"


- more here.

Other commentary also here and here and other articles at AndrewSullivan.

Tear gas attacks in Tehran - Saturday 20 June 2009

Some more video-footage of yesterday's demonstratons in Tehran, violently put down by the authorities with tear gas attacks:

Tehran - Saturday 20 June 2009

WARNING: The first of the two embedded video-clips below shows the death of a young woman in Tehran yesterday. It is very explicit. If you prefer not to see it, do not press the 'play' icon.










Death of a young woman in the street in Tehran yesterday




A recording of the demonstrations in Tehran yesterday




(both thru Barcepundit)

Blair takes breakfast with Obama

I have no idea what this is about. Tony Blair, for whatever reason, seems to retain his position of high respect in the US, to the extent that President Obama considers it worthwhile to honour him with a 'prayer breakfast'; maybe Tony Blair is doing good work as Middle East envoy and if he is at least partially instrumental in resolving some of the problems that beset that region, then it will be to his credit and perhaps make up for having [being obliged to have] left the Labour Party in the hands of its current leader and therefore our present Prime Minster. Blair was not a good Prime Minister, but at least in some ways he was plausible in the role, if not effective, which is more than can be said for Gordon Brown.

Unlike in the US, we in the UK are not accustomed to seeing our politicians 'gush' about religion and it was clear throughout his period as Prime Minister that Tony Blair chafed against British political orthodoxy in this respect, a situation he quickly 'rectified' almost immediately he ceased to be Prime Minister. This is undooubtedly a part of the reason why he seems to be so popular in the US, where a strong religious faith amongst politicians seems almost to be a 'job requirement' which few successful American politicians can afford to ignore, at least in the past twenty years or so.

Anyway, in this video-clip Tony Blair waffles about something or other, without actually seeming to say anything (a technique I have observed from that gentleman many times over the years) whilst being deeply squirm-inducing to my ears at least (and I venture to suggest to quite a significant number of my fellow Britons, too), whereas Barack Obama does at least seem to develop his arguments in sensible sentences and with definite objectives in mind:



One cannot help but feel that President Obama will, in practice, depend principally on the good offices of his own mid-east envoy George Mitchell, with Blair being - well, perhaps not actually sidelined - solely of value as some kind of token international element in what will undoubtedly be, if it succeeds at all, a product of US diplomacy managing to reconcile the opposing forces in the Middle East (Israelis, Arabs and Iranians) to tolerating, if not liking, each other. I think that Barack Obama is a very astute instinctive politicians who knows the importance of 'face' in inter-personal relations, as well as the importance of trying to ensure that no-one is potentially working at cross-purposes, even inadvertently. That is I am sure the context in which Tony Blair's presence there yesterday should be seen.

Gay young man executed in Kermanshah, Iran

More public exceutions in Iran.

Makvan Mouloodzadeh - aged 21 executed in Kermanshah, Iran 5th December 2007

A 21 year old young man has reportedly been executed in Iran on 5th December for having allegedly committed the crime of 'gay rape' (i.e. gay sex) at the age of 13 years. (thru Bill at billandkent, who had it from Towleroad)

Earlier this year I wrote here about public executions in Iran when a woman and two men were hoisted aloft on a crane by the neck. I last wrote about public excecutions of gays in Iran here. It will be recalled that President Ahmandinejad, during a recent visit to the United Nations in New York, gave the students at Columbia University the benefit of his considered thoughts on the matter:

"In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you that we have it."

That's why gays are classified in Iran as 'rapists'; let's call this 1984-style 'Newspeak' for what it is - a lie!!!!!!

What it's really like for gays in Iran!!

Despite the ridiculous lies and posturing of President Ahmandinejad during a question-and-answer session yesterday at Columbia University, the truth is rather different!!

The truth about the treatment of gays in Iran!! Amir escaped from Iran in August. He is now in Turkey. Two gay teens who were hanged in Mashad in July. Click here to read more.

A U.S. audience reacts to Ahmandinejad on homosexuality

(Please see updates at end)

President Ahmandinejad of Iran is currently in the US for the opening session of the UN and spoke yesterday at Columbia University's 'World Leaders Forum'. In a question and answer session he touched on the subject of homosexuality. Speaking in Farsi he made the claim that:

"In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you that we have it."

- well, if you'll believe that you'll believe anything! The students in the audience certainly didn't buy his story and responded with a mixture of laughter and boos. See and hear for yourself:



Although it is not entirely clear from the video-recording, it would appear that in an earlier question he had been asked about sexuality and women, but must have responded instead about 'criminals and drug-smugglers' (a common way in Iran for describing people the state doesn't like, such as homosexuals, before hanging them in public) and the moderator had to bring him back to the real question he had been asked, but had obviously tried to obfuscate about.
(thru Joe at Joe.My.God.)

UPDATE: (Tuesday 25SEP07 09.33 BST) I have just located a source for a transcipt of the dialogue with President Ahmandinejad at Columbia University - the link is to a download of a 'Word' document (the source website is here).

2nd UPDATE: (Tuesday 25SEP07 15.54 BST) Here's a video-recording of President Ahmandinejad of Iran being introduced by Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University. It is very rude and very blunt, but absolutely the unvarnished truth and I consider it highly-justified in the circumstances; any illusion that President Ahmandinejad might have had that he could use his appearance at Columbia University as some kind of propaganda coup was effectively shattered by this timely if curmudgeonly introductory speech of 'greeting' to an 'honoured guest':



Bravo!
(thru Andrew Sullivan here)

3rd UPDATE: (Thursday 27SEP07 09.05 BST) It's not a particular surprise to me, but in official transcripts of President Ahmandinejad's appearance at Columbia University on Monday there is no mention of the questions, or his answers, relating to gays. Either whoever runs official propaganda outlets in Iran thinks pretending the 'problem' doesn't exist will make it go away (it won't!), or they know that publishing his blanket denial that gays exist in Iran would be greeted with as much derision there as it was in New York. However, I'm pleased to say that the news is already out in Iran (the internet makes it very difficult for this type of thing to be kept completely quiet) and my little blog has already received a number of hits from Iran in the past few days as a result of web-searches on Google or Yahoo! .

Brutality in Tabriz: a grotesque public hanging in Iran

Warning: the video below is of a graphic nature and shows the public hanging of a woman and two men in Tabriz, Iran. Do not click the 'play' link if you are overly sensitive. The persons being executed are raised slowly on a crane - there is nothing 'humane' about these brutal and prolonged killings; this is reported to have taken place on or shortly before 15th July 2007. I embed it here because this is the reality of what is going on in a country such as Iran.

Allahu-akbar ('God is Great') indeed! The use of these words in this context sullies the name of Islam!

NB/ The original 'Live Leak' video available through the link below has disappeared from the internet some time ago, but I have recently (11MAY2015) discovered the same video on YouTube so that is what is embedded here now - it is just as horrible as I recall the original was, although perhaps the quality is no quite so good. I noticed, via my site visitor statistics, that someone had viewed this article today from Dubai in the UAE and that prompted me to try and find a replacement for the original video.

(thru Andrew Sullivan, in turn thru Arash Kamangir, an Iranian exile living in Canada.)