We cannot criticise China until we clean up our own act

Earlier this week Akmal Shaikh, from London, was executed in China after being convicted of drug smuggling, 4kg of heroin to be precise. This was easily enough to qualify him for the death penalty, a punishment given out in China for even non-violent crimes such as tax fraud. Repeated calls for clemency were made by the UK government and Akmal Shaikh’s family, the crux of the argument being that he was mentally ill and should not suffer the same punishment as a person who is of “sound mind”.

However right the UK government has been in protesting against the execution, I feel they have missed the point. Even if Mr. Shaikh had been of completely sound judgement, he should not face such ludicrously harsh treatment for something as banal as drug smuggling. The transportation of drugs is a cultural crime. There is nothing morally wrong with taking drugs, nor their transportation. Who exactly is harmed by moving a opiate from one place to another?

The anti-drugs lobby, as well as Chinese authorities, protest that the heroin he was bringing into the country would kill and ruin lives. This might be true, but then again it might not. There are too many variables at work, and those variables are in the hands of others, not he. His “crime” was transporting a drug.

Others may say that drug-smuggling is also illegal in the UK, so we cannot blame the Chinese authorities for punishing him as we would, just in their own way. Yes this is true, and there are those of us that want the law reformed within our own boarders too.

The objection China has to drugs is a cultural one rather than a logical one, and our citizens should not face drastic penalties at the hands of irrational cultural prejudice. Imagine a British women, whilst visiting a deeply religious country, was sentenced to death for not wearing the correct head-ware that particular culture dictates. Whilst we would apologise for offence caused we would simply not allow the punishment to take place, because we act rationally enough to know that killing someone because of something as benign as putting a cloth on your head is utterly moronic. We should be able to take the same stance over drugs, but unlike with religion, at home we are still far from acting rationally when it comes to recreational drugs, and this prevents our intervention.

This ridiculous war on drugs is causing many casualties. Some are users shooting up on heroin mixed with fertilizer. Others are poor vulnerables like Akmal Shaikh. But the biggest casualty has been reason, and our dignity in the face of a barbaric nation whom we are impotent to criticise because of our own shameful failings.

We’re not the same, I’m a liberal, you’re a sick asshole

David Cameron, in a move to poach Liberal Democrat votes, has appealed to the more gullible ranks amongst the liberal supporters. In a speech designed to strengthen the Tory lead by siphoning off Lib Dems, Cameron claimed there was “a lot less disagreement than there used to be” between the two parties.

Essentially what Cameron was saying was, “We’re not so different, you and I. In fact we’re so similar you might as well vote Conservative just to make sure those pesky socialists lose the next election. Then we can all settle down in a hot-tub together. It’ll be lovely.”

Quick off the mark so not to be seen as someone with the lurgey, Nick Clegg made a speech distancing himself from Cameron’s remarks. Turns out Liberals don’t like being compared to Tories one bit. It was all somehow reminiscent of a certain scene from Falling Down….

The Daddy State

Following the case of Paul Clarke, I have been doing a lot of thought about our justice system. We live in an era when retribution has been taken completely out of the hands of the every day citizen and placed squarely in the remit of the state. This has been a gradual shift that has taken place slowly over hundreds of years as the police’s ability to enforce law has become more and more effective. But is this right? Is it reasonable to give such responsibility to the state? And what effect is it having upon us as a society?

First of all, is there even a problem? Some might argue that there is no problem with our justice system. They would cite that crime is far lower in our generation than any previous one. Blame for the belief that crime is ‘out of control’ would be placed squarely at the feet of the tabloid press, who have an interest in scaremongering as such a tactic sells papers. These arguments may be true, but regulation of the numbers of crimes committed is not the issue; the issue is whether, in our current society, justice is being served. Well, is it?

Those who take part in our legal system strive to free themselves from basic ignorance; that is the immediate and understandable ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy. ‘He murdered someone so should be put to death’ or ‘he raped someone so should have his dick cut off’, that sort of thing. So instead of this old-testament approach, punishment is dispensed dispassionately, with cool-headed calculation. These intellectuals are interested in what is better for society, rather than simply locking people up.

For example, a man bumps into a child on a station. As he bends down to apologise, the father punches the man in the face. The man falls, hits his head and dies. Should that father go to jail for life? The cool-headed intellectual says no. What would be the point? they ask. He did not intend to kill, merely to hurt. And the drawbacks for a long prison sentence are major: boy deprived of father, immense cost to the state and prison tends to make criminals rather than break them. The choice for the intellectual is clear: society would be best served by sending the man to jail for a few years, but certainly not as long as a murderer.

“Intellectual Ignorance”

But these people have merely been trapped by another form of ignorance – ‘intellectual ignorance’. So concerned with the mantel of ‘objective thinking’ and so busy thinking about society as if it were a game to be manipulated, that they have forgotten about justice and the right of the individual. The man who died had friends and relatives who need to feel like justice has been served, regardless of what would make national statistics look better in the long run. Three, five or ten years for killing a man is not enough for those who have lost someone. It may be true that leniency and rehabilitation lead to a healthier society, but to think that takes precedence over a person’s need for justice is falling into an even greater folly – forgetting that inside everyone’s head is a conscious being. We are not machines. We are not bees, all part of the same hive. Inside each and every one of us is a mind to whom their experiences are everything. When you deny a person justice is breaks them. It is a punishment that cannot be bared.

So when these judges fail to punish criminals sufficiently what they are really doing is punishing the victims and fuelling what I call the ‘Daddy state’.

“Daddy State”

It has been claimed that we live in a nanny state, where the government has great control over our lives and snoops into our affairs. I think it is the other way around. We live in a ‘Daddy state’, where we think that the state is the solution to all of our problems. Kids aren’t doing well in school – we go running to the state. People are getting too fat – what can the government do to stop it? A crime is committed- it’s up to society to punish those responsible. We have decided that the state should be a father figure, someone to run to over the slightest problem. The state is our ‘Daddy’, and not a nice one either, but a ‘don’t tell your mother about our little secret’ type, and for this we only have ourselves to blame.

And what’s terrible about this situation is that the ‘Daddy state’ no longer looks out for us, but punishes us by treating justice as a way of tinkering with statistics and end results. Over hundreds of years we have allowed ourselves to lose all responsibility for our own justice and give it over to the state, but now we find the state was never interested in justice in the first place, merely about keeping the peace.

The effect of such corruption (of the human psyche) is that we have become as children, afraid to sort out our own affairs. Right and wrong no longer have any relevance when we always have to wait on Daddy’s word, and if Daddy’s word makes no sense to us as people, something has to change. What will it be? Will we go mad, or will we finally grow up?

The Queen’s Gone Mad!

Today the Queen described a magical world where parliament is able to pass ten bills in seven months. Totally crazy of course, given that the conservatives and lib dems could defeat any bill that hit the lords, but hey, she’s an old gal, and just because she’s gibbering inanely, doesn’t mean we should be rude and point it out to her, does it?

Of course not! It’s not her fault at all – Gawd Bless her! – it’s those Labour rotters making her read out their pre-election manifesto, a last ditch attempt to sell their thousands of third class tickets for the labour-titanic fourth-term voyage. Election time is only seven months away (at the most!) and so far no-one’s buying.

The proposals include support for the most impoverished elderly, giving more powers to Ofcom and rather hilariously, a law promising to cut the deficit in half. How silly is that? Actually creating a law to guarantee they do the job they should just be doing! It’s the equivalent of Arnold J Rimmer spending all his pre-exam time working on the revision timetable.

This nonsense was noted by Nick “please don’t look at me lest you learn just how dull I actually am” Clegg who called it “fantasy politics” and called for the government to spend the rest of their term reforming our electoral system. Now that really is a fantasy!

David Cameron on the other hand had a confession to make. After claiming that the government had run out of “time, ideas and courage” he went on to say they were “acting like an opposition”. Damn right Davey boy, that’s precisely how our main opposition party have been behaving for years.

The election seems to have kicked off, and it looks like a dull depressing affair with no hope of salvation, just an inevitable slide to conservatism. It’s like an old war-criminal dying of old age, leaving his estate to a spotty slimy bigoted nephew. Or perhaps Macbeth being deposed, only to be replaced by his mad wife. Only swine-flu can save us now.

Ted Haggard, The Second Coming?

Everybody’s favourite hypocrite, Ted Haggard, has relaunched himself onto the public stage. Haggard, who was disgraced back in 2006 by a sex and drugs scandal, held a prayer meeting at his home in Colorado Springs on Thursday Evening.

At his height, Ted Haggard was an immensely powerful evangelist who claimed to have the ear of then-President Bush. However, everything for poor Ted came crashing down when it turned out he’d been seeing and taking drugs with a gay prostitute. Given that this was against everything he’d ever preached, we all found it hilarious (and ironically the closest thing to evidence I’ve ever seen for the existence of a god).

And now he is back! Using the prayer meeting as a possible launch pad for a new church he met with press outside his home.

“For the people who come tonight, that means they believe in the resurrection in me,” he said. “Because I died. I was buried.”

Is this a new beginning for Ted Haggard? I hope so, because with him representing Christians more people will be turned off religion entirely.

To see Haggard (pre-disgrace) check out Richard Dawkins’ documentary, “The Root Of All Evil” in which he interviews Haggard about evolution. If the man does not give you nightmares, you’re a stronger person than I.

Welcome back Ted!!

Alan Johnson Is Pro-Ecstasy!

After meeting with Alan Johnson, three more members of the ACMD (Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs ) have resigned: Dr Campbell, Dr John Marsden, and Ian Ragan. The reason for these further departures is the lack of respect given to the scientific community by the government. They claim that the government ignored their advice to keep Cannabis class C and instead upgraded it for – and this may shock you – political reasons! Yes, that’s right. The government was simply trying to grab a few easy votes!

Ok, maybe that’s not shocking, and in fact it’s obvious, but if you are a respected member of the scientific community, it’s a bit bloody embarrassing to look like you’re a part of such nonsense.

The question that needs to be asked is, why has Alan Johnson mishandled this so badly? The only possible answer I can fathom is that he must secretly be pro-legalisation, and is trying to reveal our society for the hypocritical druggy nation it is. The other option – that our home secretary is in fact a grossly incompetent nitwit (and a coward to boot) – is rather too grim to contemplate.

Sex Education? Vital Information!

365:225 by Lolie SmithA change in government policy means that parents can now only prevent their children from receiving sex education up to the age of fifteen. Previously it was nineteen. Yes, that’s right. Under previous rules a young person could be legally old enough to fornicate, yet their parents could prevent them being told what a condom was.

Despite this welcome change of policy, the current rules are still madness. Sex education is vital education, and a parent has no right to prevent their child receiving it. A child does not chose the family it is born into. It does not decide ‘I would like to be brought up as a conservative catholic’ any more than ‘I would like to be a godless liberal’. It is up to our schools to save the child from the failings of their parents. There should be no opt out for sex education, just as a parent should not be able to opt their child out of being taught evolution.

Denying a child vital information to allow them to operate in a modern society is abuse. It’s that simple. Just because the parent is a sexually repressed moron, doesn’t mean their offspring have to suffer the same fate.

The Folly of the Coward Alan Johnson

Once again drugs have become the hot-topic, with scientists being put in the firing line for politicians and journalists to make an easy killing and rouse their rabid followers in jubilant screams of blood-thirsty ecstasy.

Professor David Nutt was the first to go, sacked for speaking the truth about the dangers of illegal drugs vs legal ones. One particular comment that caused him to be targeted was claiming that ‘taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than riding a horse’. Of course this led to the Daily Mail Taliban rushing in to condemn such a claim. ‘He is trivialising the deaths of victims of drug abuse’ they babble incoherently, gnawing at their collars and pulling their burqas close. What these zealots fail to see is that it is not trivialising to compare one statistic to another. If anything, it is they who are belittling deaths, but not of those who perish from the extremely rare reaction to E but those who die from horse riding accidents. Does the Daily Mail not think these are regrettable deaths? No, clearly they think a horse riding accident is a trivial laughable thing, and those related to the deceased deserve no sympathy at all.

Since the removal of Professor Nutt two more members of the council have resigned in support. I salute them and hope more follow suit. The government has for too long ignored scientific evidence and instead chased ‘tough’ headlines in the tabloid press. It is ignorant, cowardly and the actions of a theocracy rather than a supposed rational liberal democratic government.

BNP List

Once again, the BNP are in the news; not just for the upcoming appearance of Nick Griffin on Question Time (an edition that is guaranteed to be a hoot!) but also for yet another leaked list of its membership.

At the moment, in the UK, we have a system of anonymity with our contributions towards the political process. The aim of this is a noble one: to free people from intimidation. However, it also has a negative repercussion, which is that it enables people to support unsavory political movements without that added hassle of “having to stand by one’s beliefs”. Another example of this is the typical “Tory bounce”, a phenomena when the Conservative party does better in actual elections than they appear from exit polls – because people are too ashamed to admit they voted Tory!

It’s probably also fairly important to note that the BNP deny the legitimacy of this list. Aparantly they have such few members that it’s very easy to quickly check.

For more information visit the BBC.

To honour this latest nonsense here’s a poem I wrote last year, resurrected by a news-cycle!


He once was a friend I hope you get the gist
I just saw my friend on the BNP list
The one in the news that you could not have missed
His name was right there on the BNP list

It hangs on my heart like a bloody great cyst
I just saw my wife on the BNP list
Those beautiful lips that I’ll no longer kiss
Because she was found on the BNP list

At first I was worried but now I am pissed
I just saw my dad on the BNP list
Shame brings me shakes in my tightly clenched fist
Why is his name there on the BNP list?

That should be the end but now there’s a twist
I just saw my name on the BNP list
Don’t like immigrants but I’m not racist
I’m not like the rest on the BNP list

Insult the Buggers!

The arrival of Geert Wilders to the UK is not just a victory for free speech, but also a victory for the possibility of change. Geert Wilders, for those who are not familiar with this story, is the Dutch MP who was refused entry to the UK in February on the grounds he supposedly incites religious hatred. These accusations are levelled at him because of his views on the Koran.

To quote the BBC:

‘Mr Wilders said he was not setting out to insult Muslims – the majority of whom were “law-abiding” – but he defended his right to criticise the actions of a minority who he said posed a threat to society.
“My aim is not to insult anyone but it is to defend freedom,” he said.’

Why is it, that even this man, is afraid to stand up and say, “the Koran – what a load of nonsense!”? It seems that everyone is falling over themselves to keep this “law-abiding community” happy. Surely if they are all law-abiding, he wouldn’t need to be so careful? The truth is he’s trying to stop himself being crushed under the weight of so many outraged religious nutbags, all demanding his head on a stick.

I don’t know where Mr. Wilders is coming from in his anger towards certain sections of Islam, and quite frankly, I don’t care. It’s about time people stopped apologising for their criticisms and went for the real problem: religion itself. Because it does not matter how extreme a person’s faith is, it’s still maintaining something is true without a shred of evidence, and such thoughts are corrupting.

Banning someone from your country simply because their views are currently unpopular is dangerous because it stifles the possibility for change. Sure, his views are not widely acceptable now, but in the future they could be considered the norm. When you clamp down on debate you are refusing your society to evolve, and something that doesn’t evolve will fail. I happen to believe that recreational drugs should be legal; should I be deported lest I corrupt the youth into a life of sin? Of course not, and one day my views will be the norm and everyone will wonder how it could ever have been otherwise. I also like to think, in the future, religion will be considered as foolish and illogical as homophobia or racism and thus these debates ridiculous.

As a lover of freedom, I think people should be able to practice any religion they please, however I also feel they should be told by a Dutchman that they’re an idiot.