Jump to content
aberdeen-music

The killing of a Bipolar Disorder sufferer


Hog

Recommended Posts

So it's ok for China to execute someone,but it's not if the UK did it?That doesn't make sense.

Playing Devil's Advocate, he could support China's right to its own judicial system and to punish criminals as that judicial system dictates, without interference from foreign countries. That doesn't mean he supports the death penalty per se, just China's right to use it.

Having said all that, if we were to follow the maxim that no-one should ever interfere with another country's judicial system, regardless of what was carried out in the name of that system, history would be significantly different...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different countries have different laws and we must respect that. In an ideal world the law would be international but it is not and some decisions will drive other countries round the bend, abdul basset elf megraxi anyone?

He broke the law and was dealt with and processed by the Chinese legal system which has operated this way for years. One less major drug dealer means a slightly better world.

I support Chinas decision on this matter. However, I am not in support of the death penalty in the UK.

So you support a countries judicial system that has a track record of human rights atrocities? A 30 minute court case for a "possibly" mentally ill man is justified because "that's the way they do it in China".

What next, Tibet is fine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you support a countries judicial system that has a track record of human rights atrocities? A 30 minute court case for a "possibly" mentally ill man is justified because "that's the way they do it in China".

What next, Tibet is fine?

Yes, Yes and Yes! Why? Because they are their own countries run by their own people and standards are different there, what may be a human right abuse here would never constitute one there! Imagine if China forced its prisoners to slop out or god forbid took away their 'Sega Xui 360'

Our government, the UK one have never ever, ever commited human rights abuses, never in any prison, never in Ireland, you do know its Sunday? Bloody Sunday already? I could have sworn it was Tuesday.

I don't mind what they do in Tibet, it's not my country and If I did go there I'd make sure I followed the laws!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not at all. But if someone is clearly that mentally impaired that they can't be responsible for their own actions, then someone else clearly has to be. If they're not that mentally impaired then they should be held accountable for their own actions just like everyone else. Are you saying that all mentally impaired people should be given special treatment and treated differently from everyone else? What happened to equality?

I think you're making a great point. Fair enough, it's not his fault that he is bi-polar, but if, as his defence stated, "he didn't know what he was doing" and that "He just believed he could do anything, and he could achieve anything", I think that is a VERY dangerous state of mind for a person to be in and there HAS to be someone with them to regulate their actions if they cannot. What if there was a bomb in that briefcase or something? It's all fair and well saying he deserves independence and all that, but when he is a danger to himself and everyone around him, I can't help but feel his independence should have taken a back seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind what they do in Tibet, it's not my country and If I did go there I'd make sure I followed the laws!

1. The point is that his defence were arguing that he wasn't aware he was breaking any laws.

2. Tibet aren't breaking any laws! They are being bullied into submission by a power much greater than theirs. Is that ok? On the same tack, would it be fine for America to just wander over here and occupy us because they are bigger than us? Or would you care then because it's your well being that's at stake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Yes and Yes! Why? Because they are their own countries run by their own people and standards are different there, what may be a human right abuse here would never constitute one there! Imagine if China forced its prisoners to slop out or god forbid took away their 'Sega Xui 360'

Our government, the UK one have never ever, ever commited human rights abuses, never in any prison, never in Ireland, you do know its Sunday? Bloody Sunday already? I could have sworn it was Tuesday.

I don't mind what they do in Tibet, it's not my country and If I did go there I'd make sure I followed the laws!

So it's ok to have an unfair trial? Sorry but regardless of what country and differing cultures, opinions, traditions etc I fail to understand how you can brush away any compassion.

I'm not expecting the UK to turn into the US and get involved in every other countries politics but this has been an exception.

Wonder how you would feel if you developed a mental illness, received an unfair trial and was sentenced to death? Yep, it's fine... it's their country.o_O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's ok to have an unfair trial? Sorry but regardless of what country and differing cultures, opinions, traditions etc I fail to understand how you can brush away any compassion.

I'm not expecting the UK to turn into the US and get involved in every other countries politics but this has been an exception.

Wonder how you would feel if you developed a mental illness, received an unfair trial and was sentenced to death? Yep, it's fine... it's their country.o_O

I'm gonna agree here as well. Had there been a fair trial where every fair eventuality had been looked at, then yes, China have the right to decide on their own laws and act upon them. As it happens, by the looks of it, there was a bit of "a trial just so we could say there was a trial".

I think it was funky_peanut that mentioned Chinas international relations and internal civil unrest earlier ? And i think that's a fair point to make in this case. I can't help but feel they were proving a point. The PRC government are a totalitarian government with no shades of grey and if they have to make an example every now and again, they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Yes and Yes! Why? Because they are their own countries run by their own people and standards are different there, what may be a human right abuse here would never constitute one there! Imagine if China forced its prisoners to slop out or god forbid took away their 'Sega Xui 360'

Our government, the UK one have never ever, ever commited human rights abuses, never in any prison, never in Ireland, you do know its Sunday? Bloody Sunday already? I could have sworn it was Tuesday.

I don't mind what they do in Tibet, it's not my country and If I did go there I'd make sure I followed the laws!

I'm not playing Devil's Advocate anymore. Someone needs to step away from Cultural Relativism 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Yes and Yes! Why? Because they are their own countries run by their own people and standards are different there, what may be a human right abuse here would never constitute one there! Imagine if China forced its prisoners to slop out or god forbid took away their 'Sega Xui 360'

Our government, the UK one have never ever, ever commited human rights abuses, never in any prison, never in Ireland, you do know its Sunday? Bloody Sunday already? I could have sworn it was Tuesday.

I don't mind what they do in Tibet, it's not my country and If I did go there I'd make sure I followed the laws!

You can't say because our government breached human rights it is ok for China to do like wise,and invade a sovereign state and breach THEIR laws and persecute peaceful buddhist monks.And persecute peaceful falun gong followers in their own country........wake up and smell the coffee!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's ok to have an unfair trial? Sorry but regardless of what country and differing cultures, opinions, traditions etc I fail to understand how you can brush away any compassion.

I'm not expecting the UK to turn into the US and get involved in every other countries politics but this has been an exception.

Wonder how you would feel if you developed a mental illness, received an unfair trial and was sentenced to death? Yep, it's fine... it's their country.o_O

It is not okay to have an unfair trial in this country because it woulnd't be allowed, hopefully. I am not from China nor am I living in their society and so as an observer I have no problem with them processing criminals in any way they see fit. If this had happened in the UK, yes, of course I would have a problem with it.

The government did all they could for which I commend them however, it is not our country and we could not expect anything, just hope.

I don't understand how anyone, even with bi-polar could completely neglect the fact, which has been implanted in their head, probably from birth that Heroin is probably considered the worst drug available in 90 or so % of the worlds countries! There is a possibility that he didn't know that China had the death penalty, or the death penalty for such crimes and was willing to risk life imprisonment.

We could go with a completely wild idea, so far out there that it would be like finding out that Derek Acorah really can do what he says he can... This: Man Raped Woman to Learn English in Prison

You can't say because our government breached human rights it is ok for China to do like wise,and invade a sovereign state and breach THEIR laws and persecute peaceful buddhist monks.And persecute peaceful falun gong followers in their own country........wake up and smell the coffee!

It is okay for China to impose laws in whichever way it pleases on its own soil! The USA and its Allies invading a sovereign country such as Iraq and in the case of Germany, Russia and breaching their laws on their soil is despicable!

This man committed a crime partially within China and deserved punishment, whether or not he deserved the death penalty, peoples views differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Human Rights are universal. They are the same in China as they are in the UK.

2. When you say "China" does this or that, you are in fact talking about an unelected clique which is in power via brute strength. You think it's OK for unelected, incredibly authoritarian governments to do whatever the hell they please simply because they can? Fuck off.

It is okay for China to impose laws in whichever way it pleases on its own soil! The USA and its Allies invading a sovereign country such as Iraq and in the case of Germany, Russia and breaching their laws on their soil is despicable!

This man committed a crime partially within China and deserved punishment, whether or not he deserved the death penalty, peoples views differ.

Tibet was a sovereign state until China's invasion and occupation. In a similar vein, in Xinjiang Han Chinese are not the ethic majority. So that particular region is not ruled "by its own people" even ethnically speaking, let alone run by a real representative government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Human Rights are universal. They are the same in China as they are in the UK.

2. When you say "China" does this or that, you are in fact talking about an unelected clique which is in power via brute strength. You think it's OK for unelected, incredibly authoritarian governments to do whatever the hell they please simply because they can? Fuck off.

Different cultures have different ideas of human rights! They are not a globally accepted standard, the main shared rights seem to be food, water and shelter. Read this: Top French court rips heart out of Sarkozy internet law - Times Online

There are multiple styles of government and all have their good and bad points. China has one which is considered 'bad' by western ideologies, however, it is they not us who are the ones weathering the current financial climate more comfortably. As for the last part of your post, this has been answered in my previous posts! Please keep it civil!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different cultures have different ideas of human rights! They are not a globally accepted standard, the main shared rights seem to be food, water and shelter. Read this: Top French court rips heart out of Sarkozy internet law - Times Online

There are multiple styles of government and all have their good and bad points. China has one which is considered 'bad' by western ideologies, however, it is they not us who are the ones weathering the current financial climate more comfortably. As for the last part of your post, this has been answered in my previous posts! Please keep it civil!

It is a globally accepted standard. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be exact.

You haven't answered anything. You said it was wrong for states to invade other states. Why then was it OK for the PRC to invade and occupy Tibet and indeed Xinjiang?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a globally accepted standard. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be exact.

You show me a list of current signatories and i'll disagree with the use of the use of the word 'globally'

You said it was wrong for states to invade other states. Why then was it OK for the PRC to invade and occupy Tibet and indeed Xinjiang?

Yes I do believe that it is wrong as I stated a few posts ago! I don't know Scott, why don't you tell us why it was ok for PRC to invade and occupy Tibet and Xinjiang!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You show me a list of current signatories and i'll disagree with the use of the use of the word 'globally'

Yes I do believe that it is wrong as I stated a few posts ago! I don't know Scott, why don't you tell us why it was ok for PRC to invade and occupy Tibet and Xinjiang!

1. All members of the United Nations agree to abide by the Declaration to which I referred.

2. OK, let me spell this out for you:

You say that "China", by which you mean the CCP, can do whatever the hell it wants in Tibet and/or Xinjiang because it is part of "their" country. You also said and reconfirmed that it is wrong for one sovereign state to invade another. Those two statements contradict each other.

Both Tibet and Xinjiang (or rather East Turkestan) were two independent states added to the PRC by military annexation. If you say that it is wrong for states to invade each other, you agree that CCP rule in Tibet and Xinjiang is not legitimate. Otherwise you're saying that it's fine for totalitarian aggressor states to invade and oppress anyone they can. Unless you follow the CCP line that those regions are "historically" part of China, but since you asked me for justification I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. All members of the United Nations agree to abide by the Declaration to which I referred.

A declaration is not legally binding and not all member states fully support it!

You say that "China", by which you mean the CCP, can do whatever the hell it wants in Tibet and/or Xinjiang because it is part of "their" country. You also said and reconfirmed that it is wrong for one sovereign state to invade another. Those two statements contradict each other.

They are occupied territories, like Palestine, Cyprus and Western Sahara so there is no contradiction there whatsoever!

Otherwise you're saying that it's fine for totalitarian aggressor states to invade and oppress anyone they can.

I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion and it really does baffle me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A declaration is not legally binding and not all member states fully support it!

They are occupied territories, like Palestine, Cyprus and Western Sahara so there is no contradiction there whatsoever!

I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion and it really does baffle me!

I think (hope?) you've got a bit confused here. What people are saying is:

1 - You think that sovereign countries should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of human rights abuses.

2 - You therefore think that countries have no right to invade other sovereign countries, an extension of point 1.

3 - You think that China's action in Tibet doesn't contradict either 1 or 2, when in fact it contradicts both..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A declaration is not legally binding and not all member states fully support it!

They are occupied territories, like Palestine, Cyprus and Western Sahara so there is no contradiction there whatsoever!

I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion and it really does baffle me!

1. So? The fact is all members of the UN agree to abide by it. That is pretty well "globally accepted". The fact you had not seemed to have heard of such an important document does not inspire confidence in your knowledge of international law and politics anyway.

Yes there is a contradiction. Tibet and East Turkestan were sovereign states invaded and annexed by an aggressor state. You said categorically that such actions are wrong. Is it fine as long as it didn't happen in your lifetime? What do you even mean by "Occupied Territories", is that some legal definition you invented on the spot? It's a term applied to former Palestine and that's it. Nazi Europe was full of "occupied territories", was that perfectly all right by you?

Even then, why was it fine for the PRC to create "occupied territories" out of Tibet and East Turkestan/Xinjiang?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think (hope?) you've got a bit confused here. What people are saying is:

1 - You think that sovereign countries should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of human rights abuses.

2 - You therefore think that countries have no right to invade other sovereign countries, an extension of point 1.

3 - You think that China's action in Tibet doesn't contradict either 1 or 2, when in fact it contradicts both..

1. Inside their own country

2. Yes

3. Having researched it, Tibet is part of China so they can do what they like there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Inside their own country

2. Yes

3. Having researched it, Tibet is part of China so they can do what they like there!

What the does all this have to do with China executing a mentally ill man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how anyone, even with bi-polar could completely neglect the fact, which has been implanted in their head, probably from birth that Heroin is probably considered the worst drug available in 90 or so % of the worlds countries! There is a possibility that he didn't know that China had the death penalty, or the death penalty for such crimes and was willing to risk life imprisonment.

Are you stupid or something or maybe you haven't studied the case.....HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE SUITCASE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...