Discrimination against Non-Western laws - Part II:

Transforming into neo-colonial character

Continued from yesterday

Dr. Peter Baofu

In regard to the second example concerning a British woman's being prosecuted for having illicit sex in Dubai" - the mainstream coverage in Western mass media continues its spinning against non-Western laws.

For instance, the Economist in the U.K. published an article on January 14, 2010 which condemned the arrest of a "23-year-old British woman" and who "was barred from leaving the country while awaiting trial," because "on New Year's Day she told police she had been raped the previous evening by a waiter at a five-star hotel," and "the police arrested her after she revealed during questioning that she had drunk alcohol and had sex with her fiance, with whom she was on holiday."

The hidden excuse

It is well-known that "under sharia law, sex out of wedlock and the drinking of alcohol are illegal" in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as the Economist acknowledged but condemned it anyway. In other words, so the hidden excuse goes, it is not right for a Westerner to get punished for drinking alcohol and have sex out of wedlock in an Islamic country like UAE; Western values are to be respected too, so the excuse goes, because these Westerners are not Arab Muslims and should be treated differently.

Yet, when Muslims from the Middle East travel to Western countries, they are expected to obey Western laws and cannot excuse themselves by being non-Westerners, or by borrowing the same excuse that non-Western values are to be respected too, because these non-Westerners are not Westerners in the West and should be treated differently. On the contrary, unfortunately, non-Western nationals often suffer widespread discrimination in Western societies. For instance, in France, it is not legal for Muslim women (regardless of whether they are originally from France or from Muslim countries) to wear their scarfs, especially in public places like schools, hospitals, and public transports.

But why should the West not respect the non-Western values of those non-Westerners in the West - while Western nationals expect non-Westerners in the Non-West to respect their Western values when the former (these Westerners) are in these non-Western countries?

And thirdly, in regard to the third (and the last) example concerning a British man, Akmal Shaikh, who was convicted of drug smuggling in China and received the death penalty under the Chinese law - the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown immediately condemned it, as he thus said: "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." And the family of Akmal Shaikh offered the excuse that he was suffering from mental illness and should be given clemency.

Other side of the story

But what the mainstream Western mass media did not report much is the other side of the story, in three important aspects which are vital to the case.

The first important aspect is that there was no documentation to even prove that Shaikh was mentally ill. For instance, the Supreme People's Court could not receive any documentation from the British side to prove that Shaikh was mentally ill, as briefly acknowledged in a news update by BBC on December 29, 2009.

Demand "clemency"

The second important aspect is that Shaikh "was carrying 80 times the minimum amount of heroin which carries the death penalty,...enough heroin to kill over 26,000 people," as Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey pointed out in his article (on Dec. 29, 2009).

And the third important aspect is that the Chinese legal system had already given Shaikh the longest due process for an exhaustive examination of the case possible under the law (which had lasted for more than two years). For instance, as Bancroft-Hinchey thus explained, "the People's Republic of China has its laws, and due legal process was followed from his detention on September 12, 2007, through the two appeals processes and right up to the review of the case in the People's Supreme Court in December 2009.

The rights of Shaikh were followed to the letter, throughout. And that is the prerogative of the PR China and nobody else, just as it is the prerogative of the State of Texas to execute prisoners, whether the rest of the world likes it or not."

Yet, when Chinese nationals travel to Western countries, can they expect or demand "clemency" when they are in legal trouble with Western legal systems? Can China condemn Western countries whenever Chinese nationals are arrested under Western laws in the West and are not given any clemency? Bluntly speaking, the West would not give a damn to any clemency towards any Chinese nationals (and would strongly regard any demand like this as a blatant interference with its legal systems).

Yet, can China ask for "clemency" with the US legal system for his release? No, of course not, the law should be obeyed in the US, regardless of nationality. Even worse, there are people in higher authority in the US who asked for harsher punishment against Jiang, with no mercy at all.

These three cases as described here, namely, the ones concerning Google, the British woman, and Shaikh, are by no mean exhaustive (as there can be many other cases like this) but suffice to illustrate the important point of how much non-Western laws are often treated with condescension and discrimination by Westerners while being in the Non-West, in a way that they do not reciprocate the same treatment to non-Westerners who are in the West and are in trouble with Western laws.

Western colonialism

There is a pervasive (often publicly unspoken) racist and ethnocentric discrimination against non-Western laws by Western nationals, as a long historical legacy of Western colonialism in the Non-West during much of the modern era.

This colonial legacy of Western superiority complex has not disappeared but transforms itself into a neo-colonial character in our time, often hidden behind the slogans of "human rights," "freedom," "clemency," and the like.

One major consequence is that Westerners can go to any place in the Non-West and, when in legal trouble with local laws, often expect the preferential treatment of not being prosecuted and of being released, with such excuses as "clemency," "human rights," "freedom," and the like, in a way that they do not reciprocate the same preferential treatment to non-Westerners who are in legal trouble in the West. In fact, these non-Westerners are, more often than not, suffer from pervasive discrimination in Western societies, to the extent that not only they are not given any "clemency" but also they often receive harsher punishment than otherwise.

Thus are the Western neo-colonial discrimination against non-Western laws - and its inhumane consequence in our time. Concluded .

Courtesy: Pravda