Kmal Shaikh dies so that Wen Jinbao can save face – the fruits of engagement

How many need to die to save the face of Wen Jinbao?

The British media is reporting that China has gone ahead with the execution of Kmal Shaikh, a 53 year old father-of-three from London who was convicted of drug smuggling in China. His family have claimed that he was mentally ill and requested a medical examination. The examination was refused by the Chinese and Mr. Shaikh was executed by lethal injection.

The British government had made representation to the Chinese but I suspect that there was some fall out from the recent Copenhagen summit where the authoritarian Chinese leadership “lost face”. The Chinese regime has a reputation for throwing tantrums whenever anyone tries to interfere in it’s “internal affairs” and this time was no exception. As far as the Chinese were concerned Mr. Shaikh had to die for China to save face.

So, the British government is now angry, but one has to ask why? Why did anyone believe that a regime that maintains it’s grip on power at the point of a gun would worry about killing one man? Why does the West kowtow to China?

The answer we are given, by our supposedly informed elite, is that we need to “engage” with China and this will bring reform. Engagement usually boils down to allowing western companies to employ Chinese workers in order to  lower costs.

This engagement is taken as an article of faith but I wonder if anyone can site an example where it has worked. I know of no instance where an authoritarian regime has liberalised because outside influences have traded with it and thereby increased that regime’s power. In fact, if assisting a regime to grow richer and more powerful is a recipe for improved human rights, liberalisation and greater democracy then surely this tactic should be tried with Iran.

Our elite are of course TALKING BOLLOCKS! Supporting authoritarian regimes makes them stronger and entrenches their totalitarian instincts. The key to this is that our elites are not interested in greater democracy, they are interested in greater profits.

Our leaders frequently use the terms democracy and capitalism interchangeably but they are not the same. Since the second world war western countries have, in general, been both capitalist and democratic but prior to the war democracy was not so prevalent.

In the UK, prior to 1832 only male landowners could vote. This gradually changed until it included most males by 1918 but women did not get complete voting rights until 1928. So the UK’s claims to be an ancient democracy is complete poppy cock! The UK was, and remains, a capitalist country while democracy is a recent add-on brought about by two world wars and the rise of an alternative to capitalism in the Soviet Union.

During the Cold War, with the threat (and implied alternative), of the Soviet Union, western countries became more liberal. Pensions, health care and workers rights blossomed. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the inferred failure of socialism, these hard won gains are being eroded. In the UK, one hears constantly of companies closing pension schemes along with exhortations that we must “compete” with China. By “compete” our elite mean that we must accept lower standards in the work place and lower wages.

Our leaders claim that “engagement” with an authoritarian regime will raise their standard of democracy and human rights but the truth is that the Chinese regime has no interest or need to improve human rights and rather than their standards rising we are being forced to lower ours.

We are told that we must compete or we will lose out, but hold on, the implication of this is that if China did not exist we would suffer some terrible fate as we would not be able to take advantage of their cheap labour. This is bollocks! The west went from strength to strength when the Soviet Union and China were both outside the World Trade Organisation. We may choose to trade with China but we do not “need” China.

It is true that the west has benefitted from all sorts of cheap goods from China. One only has to go onto ebay to wonder that it’s possible to buy a USB flash memory radio transmitter for £ 4.61 (yes , I did this!!). This is amazing value but do I need it? No. Would I sacrifice democracy, human rights and our children’s future for the ability to treat all goods as throw away items? NO! Do I want a world where goods are cheap but freedom is limited to an elite? NO!

The truth is that elites are always greedy – socialist or capitalist. Our leaders want engagement to increase profits but at the cost of democracy, civil rights and human rights. The protection from powerful elites is democracy. China is not a democracy and has shown no interest in democratizing.

We should be extremely cautious about becoming reliant on China for any key product or service. We should also be more robust when dealing with the Chinese. As a start there should be major repercussions from the Chinese leaders reckless behaviour at Copenhagen and execution of  Kmal Shaikh.

Which do we value more, democracy and human rights or a Chinese USB stick?

Related posts:
china loses face by sabotaging climate change talks
china in who’s hands?

U.S. Cop pulls gun at Snowball Fight

When restricting the freedom of the individual or allowing the authorities additional powers one often hears the argument: “If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear”. People who use this argument are TALKING BOLLOCKS!  The video below demonstrates what happens when you give copes guns.

Talking Bollocks readership scales new heights

Last week was the best week ever for Talking Bollocks and last month was the best month ever. Not only that but it looks like we’re on course for another great month. Come on, have a roam around, or register and receive notification of new bollocks. Better still, Talk Bollocks! – If you have something to say, email it in and if it is not complete bollocks then we may publish it.

talking more and more bollocks

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear – 2

I wrote a blog article in November 2008. This argued that New Labour are introducing too many laws to increases state control and erode personal freedom and listed a few such as identity cards and mass interception of Emails.

The argument in favour of these laws is usually “If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear” but the people who use this argument are Talking Bollocks! The British establishment has a long history of abusing laws and another example of this was reported in The Independent today. It seems that police are using laws designed to prevent terrorism to harass photographers.

This seems a little hypocritical since, these days, the police seem to be pretty avid photographers themselves! I myself have witnessed the obtrusively abusing their policy on filming demonstrations to film a discussion between a bunch of pro Israeli oldies and a bunch of pro Palestinian hippies.

hypocrites?

With the greatest love and respect, Mandelson is a shit

Mandelson confuses PR with politics

During my drive to work this morning I listened to BBC Radio 4 and heard Evan Davies interview the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Peter Mandelson. Of course Mr. Mandelson spent all his time evading and filibustering while Mr. Davies did his best to get a straight answer. Masochists may listen to the interview here

For an excerpt check out Sushiguru’s blog

At the end of the interview Mr. Mandelson said something along the lines of “A pleasure as ever”. This sounded to me very much like he considered that this had been a successful interview. Well, it depends on how you define success.

Mr. Mandelson’s definition  appears to be that it is not to answer any questions. If this is the definition, then this was a resounding success. If you think that the interview should have been an honest presentation of the governments record and plans for the future then it was a pathetic failure.

So why is it that Mr. Mandelson is completely incapable of being honest? Why is it that he appears to spend the whole time conniving to present an image rather than actually explaing the governments position?

The answer is that media manipulation is all he knows. Wikipedia gives us an interesting insight into Mr. Mandelson’s background.

Read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at St Catherine’s College, Oxford
Director of the British Youth Council
Three years on Lambeth Borough Council (1979 to 1982)
Worked as a television producer at London Weekend Television on Weekend World
Appointed Labour Party’s Director of Communications in 1985.
Ran Fulham by-election campaign 1986
Managed the Labour Party’s 1987 general election campaign

Do you see any evidence that Mr. Mandelson has ever built a road, for example? Has he ever turned around a failing company? Did he manage a budget? Did he raise funds? Has he ever worked on a factory floor? Has he ever managed a government department? Has he done anything in his entire life that could be deemed useful to the British people?

To my mind the answer is no.

Of course I understand that in the 21st century politicians will employ people to help them “get their message across” but New Labour have allowed these media wonks to take control of the party. When Mr. Mandelson finally pulled off an election victory, Labour supporters were so desperately grateful that they lost there sense of judgement along with their self respect. They allowed Mr. Mandelson to use his contacts to move from an advisor to become a main player in the government itself. Now that he is there it is obvious that he does not have a clue what to do. He merely continues to do what he has always done. Which is to try to convince everyone, by fair means or foul, that New Labour are doing a fantastic job. The activities of new Labour expend the energy of the political establishment while achieving nothing. Mr. Mandelson gives off heat but no light.

In the interview Mr. Evans attempts to get a point across. The point is that new Labour continually make promises and set targets which they fail to achieve but, by the time their failure is apparent, they have moved the agenda on to some new target. Mr. Mandelson ducked and weaved and eventually said:

“Evan, with the greatest love and respect, I think I’m going to have to take some time to answer your questions, would you mind?”

He then launches into a an enormous monologue which I reproduce here:

“Thank you very much indeed. I think it’s very important that the government, where appropriate enacts targets, benchmarks, by which it judges itself, but more importantly, by which the public judges its delivery. That’s why we are providing guarantees for educational entitlements that’s why we’re putting in place national health service guarantees for patients, including the right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks if their GP suspects that they have cancer, that’s why we’re going to lay the foundations for the national care service for the elderly, now, the point I’m trying to make to you is that politics is about spelling out your policies, it’s about spelling out policy differences: what they mean for the public, what they say about the party’s values and beliefs, now that may be all too detailed and too policy wonkish [sic] for the taste and appetite of the BBC, certainly Today, but this is what is important for the public, and whether it be fuel poverty and our ability and determination to drive on and meet our 2010 targets, how we want to enshrine clearer individual guarantees and entitlements, both in our schools and in the national health service, the debate, the very important provision that we have got to talk about in this country, about supporting families who are looking after elderly parents or relatives who need that care, all these things are about politics, they are about policies, they are about what the public is interested in , Even, and what in time they will judge us, and the other parties, by when the election comes.”

Of course Mr. Mandelson is Talking Bollocks. Most of this is just waffle to use up time and distance himself from the question but Mandelson reveals his deeply flawed understanding of politics. He thinks that  politics is about getting the message across and he thinks that this is what the public are interested in.

It isn’t and we aren’t.

He has confused public relations with politics and this has been the flaw in New Labour from the very beginning. Politics is not about getting the message across! That is a secondary objective. The job of politics is to set policy and deliver. Endlessly setting new policies and objectives is merely an indication of the failures of past policies.

It’s worth considering the words Mr. Mandelson used to gain some space to waffle:

“Evan, with the greatest love and respect, I think I’m going to have to take some time to answer your questions, would you mind?”

There are all sorts of people in this world with all sorts of opinions. The kind I find most objectionable are the kind who can smile in your face while they stab you in the back. The sort that can lie through their teeth.

Peter, with the greatest love and respect, you are a complete shit who should never have been allowed into British politics.

Tax and spin – The New Labour doctrine

This evening on the TV I saw an advert exhorting me to reduce my driving by 5 miles a day to cut carbon emissions. On the face of it this sounds like a good idea but they are, in fact, talking bollocks.

What shall I do? Drive to within 5 miles of work, park on the side of the road and then walk into the office? Maybe I should not go into the office one day a week? An excellent idea, I’ve blogged about the benefits of telecommuting before but this ad made no mention of encouraging that and, indeed, the government has recently announced a 50p tax on broadband connections so they can’t really claim to be making any meaningful moves in that direction.

This TV advertisement represents the New Labour response to everything: raise taxes but spin a story like you’re not.

Blair for president? – Don’t look at his reputation says Brown

Don't look at his past says Brown

Gordon bloody Brown was on TV again last night banging on about having Tony Blair for president of the EU. When asked why we should have Blair considering his history Brown remarked that we should not be looking backward but forward.

What sort of nonsense is this?

When deciding on which individual should be trusted with the presidency of such as large and powerful organisation we necessarily need to understand if that person is fit for the job. How are we to do this if we cannot look at his past performance? Mr. Brown suggests that we should consider the future but, lacking precognitive powers and a crystal ball, I know nothing of Blair’s future.

We have too look at Blair history. We have to consider his reputation for spin, conniving and lies along with his appalling lack of judgement. Are these the attributes which we want in a president? I think not.

Another infuriating thing about this talk of Blair for president is that it all seems to be arranged behind closed doors. Nobody is arguing about whether he can gain a two third majority of the votes in North Rhine-Westphalia or whether he can rely on support from the Italian Constitutional Democratic Party because the presidency will not be decided democratically.

I don’t understand why is Blair’s name is even on the agenda. Who put it there? Is there even a list of nominees? I have not heard of one. There appears to be no formal process by which a president is appointed; a situation which would not be tolerated for a county cricket club, let alone a supra national organisation with tax raising powers and a budget running into the billions of Euros!

All this serves only to underline the inadequacy of EU institutions and the complacency of the national governments. Let us not forget this is not some ancient institution in need of updating. This is the presidency created in the latest fiasco of rule making now known as the Lisbon Treaty.

The political elite would have us believe that we can have the EU or we can have democracy but we can’t have both. They are talking bollocks. We can have both, we can have a democratic Europe. The obstacle for this is entrenched vested interests and until these are overcome and the EU is democratised we should keep it at arm’s length and definitely not put a power hungry incompetent in charge.

Bun Fight – Question Time with Nick Griffin

Ill Informed Ranting

I listened to Any Questions last week with the BNP leader Nick Griffin. I’d previously blogged about this and a friend email me to say that she thought that, contrary to my opinion, some people were too stupid to be exposed to Griffin’s sort of talk.

I’d respond that, while it’s true that stupid people are more susceptible to the ill informed rantings of racists (IIROR) they ar also more susceptible to the ill informed rantings of non-racists.

And good grief there was a lot of ill informed ranting on both sides in last week’s Question Time. It was a bun fight as I had predicted. Nobody let Nick Griffin finish a sentence. Everyone condemned him before he had a chance to condemn himself. I thought it was a missed opportunity to let the bloke show himself for what he was.

Someone asked him why he visited a Ku Klux Klan leader in America and he started to explain and said that this particular group were “almost totally non-violent” which I thought was a little gem but nobody was able to pull him up on this as no sooner had he uttered the words than the other panellists were asking him other questions and deriding his smile and they never actually picked up on this “almost totally..”.

It frustrates me that the self riotous lefties cannot bare for anyone to hear their opponents opinions. It’s as if they have no confidence in their own argument or opinions.

Bonnie Greer is a black American cultural commentator who usually appears on Newsnight reviewing films or theatre. She sat to Griffin’s left and he seemed constantly to be turning to her for approval.

Griffin made the point that everyone dismisses the idea that Britain has an “indigenous” people but they would not dare deny that Australian Aboriginals or Soux Indians are indigenous. I usually find Ms. Greer intelligent but last Thursday night she seemed determined to talk as much bollocks as everyone else. Pursuant to this she claimed that Britain does not have an indigenous population because it had an ice age! – Amazing.

I think much of the world had an ice age and if you’re going to claim that ice killed everyone off and so people had to immigrate into Britain then you could argue that for everyone in the world. There is even a respectable theory that organic compounds arrived on earth via comet debris and so you could argue that there are no indigenous people on Earth – If you want to be talking bollocks.

Chris Huhne, Sayeeda Warsi, Jack Straw, David Dimbleby, Nick Griffin and Bonnie Greer

Jack Straw sat to Dimbleby’s right. I quite respect Mr Straw and he normally talks sense but he too joined in with the spirit of the evening. He said that he came from a line of immigrants of Jewish origin and during World War 2 all ethnic groups in Britain had pulled together and fought off the Hun. This is the sort of thing we British like, a mongrel breed that’s pulls together in a pinch.

However, Griffin popped his balloon quite quickly by pointing out that Straw’s dad had been a conscientious objector during the war whereas Griffin’s dad had been in the Royal Airforce.

Straw bemoaned Griffin’s anti-semitism but later, when Griffin was trying to say that he wanted to support the “indigenous” people of Britain and that colour was not important, Straw kept shouting “you mean white, you mean white”. Straw is as white as Griffin on my TV so he can’t claim to be discriminated against by Griffin just because he’s a Jew and then accuse Griffin of limiting indigenous people of Britain to whites.

People become idiots when it comes to racism and think it means hating black people. The point is that Griffin was telling the truth when he said that colour is not important. Griffin hates Poles as well as Indians. Czechs as well as Nigerians. But he was not given time to say so as the angry mob just kept yelling that he hated blacks.

One black guy from the audience said that he was born in England, it was the only country he knew and he loved this country. He then asked Griffin where he should go and Griffin said that he was quite happy for the guy to stay in England. This answer seemed to disappoint everyone present.

It was interesting that after spending 90% of the program on baiting Griffin they then turned to other questions and some black guy from the audience complained that New Labour had lost control of immigration. Straw then spouted some platitudes about implementing a points system before  Conservative MP  Sayeeda Warsi joined in the criticism of New Labour on immigration.

I guess this was encouraging in a way. That, though there was real concern about the numbers of people immigrating to the UK, nobody was drawn to be sympathetic to Griffin or to blame the immigrants themselves.

The next question was about a gay pop singer who had died in Spain and how a newspaper had written something..not sure what….I think it was supposed to be insulting to gay people. The question was about free speech in the news papers.

After not letting Griffen finnish a single sentence the hypocrites then pontificated in favour of the freedom of the press to print whatever they like.

The evening was spent trying to put words in Griffin’s mouth and then getting angry when he refused to agree with them. The whole thing was a farce.

A more evenly argued review of the program than this one was published in The Independent the next day.