Advertisement

Comrade Stanhope protects alleged murderer from the death sentence

By 30 June 2005 26

Big Bill Stefaniaak has put out a media release pointing out that Mr. Stanhope is witholding information that would allow the murderer of Zhang Hong Jie (Steffi) to be tried in China. The Chinese never extradite their own.

The hitch? If found guilty in China he would likely be put to death.

The Chief Minister did put out an excellent defence of his actions which I found compelling. Sadly he neglected to put it online.

However one thing we can be sure of is that our UC’s competitors will make much hay from the failure to notice the missing student for months and the Chief Minister then obstructing the trial of her alleged killer. (no matter how justified we may feel that action).

[The Canberra Times has further coverage]

Please login to post your comments
26 Responses to Comrade Stanhope protects alleged murderer from the death sentence
#1
Thumper8:26 am, 01 Jul 05

Don’t you just love how Stanhope continually extols the virtues of all cultures, until his ideology runs into something like this.

Rather hypocritical really.

Put simply, if the guy was guilty, then Stanhope, no matter how compelling his argument, should allow an investigation.

#2
Thumper8:29 am, 01 Jul 05

Just on the same thought, I notice that there’s not a lot of support for the so called Bali Nine, and they are about to meet a bullet in the future.

Maybe the Comrade can make representations on behalf of the Republic of Canberra to the Indons and get them off facing the firing squad.

Actually, I wonder when we’ll get an Austrlian embassy in civic and a MLA for Foreign Affairs because at the moment it appears that the Comrade is running his own little soverign country.

#3
Maelinar8:53 am, 01 Jul 05

Ya, dia tidak peduli untuk Bali Sembilan. Ada satu hari di masa mendatang kami akan bergabung dengan Indonesia? Tidak di pendapat saya.

Ada gagasan yang bagus sekali untuk Kedutaan besar ‘Canberra’ dalam garema place kalau Dia berpikir dia berlari negara

We’ll all be speaking Indon next..

#4
Chris12:14 pm, 01 Jul 05

The perceptive Michael Jeffreys (2CC Breakfast) was spot on this am – he said (speaking of the Dear Leader and words to this effect)”..it’s all ‘cultural’ until something comes along that doesn’t synch with their particular ideology..like execution by firing squad. As a gweilau who lived for years in HK, I assure you that very little drug trafficking and violent crimes went on inside the Peoples Republic, due to the death penalty -carried out with cheerful efficiency by a PLA squad with the prisoner’s family charged the cost of the bullets. Why would the People’s Republic bow to the ranting of what – in their terminology- amounts to a provincial village chief ? I imagine they’ll try Steffi’s killer and sentence him to whatever punishment is felt applicable, without any need to refer it to Nohope. Oh, and they’ll first probably harvest his organs before execution,if the more lurid HK tabloids are correct.

#5
Dave_Heidelberg1:27 pm, 01 Jul 05

I completely support Stanhope’s decision.

The death penalty is barbaric, as is the Chinese regime.

Those attempting to accuse Stanhope of hypocrisy based on his strong multicultural leanings are showing no understanding of the difference between culture and politics.

It is not Chinese ‘culture’ to execute people by firing squad; it is the policy of a brutal dictatorship.

#6
Chris2:05 pm, 01 Jul 05

Brutality is in the eye of the beholder – guess where all the triads and drug traffickers scuttled to before the Handover – Australia !

#7
bulldog2:22 pm, 01 Jul 05

Dave, Execution of these purveyors of depravity and death is no more barbaric than what is happening on the streets every day.

Doesn’t matter if you look at the addicts and their behaviour or to the families torn apart by the loss of a loved one or even the violence of rival gangs.

I hope we never have to be in the position, but I think the outlook on ‘barbaric’ would change if it was one of our family members killed.

#8
seepi10:28 pm, 01 Jul 05

I bet the poor girl’s family don’t think the death sentence is barbaric, And he would have to go through a trial first.
What is the alternative – murder anyone you like in Aust. and once you’re back in Asia you’re home free?

#9
areaman12:43 pm, 04 Jul 05

No seepi, the alternative is that the person should be extradited to Australia where the crime was committed and serve time here, but the Chinese government refuses to ever extradite their own. If the victims family has an issue they should take it up the Chinese government, not the ACTs.

Bulldog, yes my outlook would change if I was directly effected, which is exactly why people in those situations shouldn’t get to make those kinds of judgements.

#10
bulldog3:25 pm, 04 Jul 05

Areaman,

Shouldn’t the punishment fit the crime?

If someone is depraved enough to take anothers life then we are merely assisting evolution strive toward a utopian society by removing these deviants from the gene pool.

If not death, then castration.

#11
areaman4:30 pm, 04 Jul 05

That’s a slippery slope you’re on there Nietzsche. Firstly we shouldn’t be taking another’s life just because they have, if we do how are we any better than them. And if it’s OK to kill a murder what about a Rapist or a Drug dealer, and who gets to make that call.

#12
bulldog4:54 pm, 04 Jul 05

The right poeple to make that call are the people who can keep their rage to themselves. But you raise a valid point; It’s hard to kill all evil doers.

By your logic we can’t deliver any sort of judgement because we, as fellow humans, have no right to alter the course of anothers life.

I’m not here to write the laws, but were it up to me Rapists would be desexed and Drug Dealers would be administered overdoses by poorly trained concreters. I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong (although I have a hunch), I’m just saying it’s worth having an open mind to the way others choose to operate.

#13
areaman5:04 pm, 04 Jul 05

I’m not saying that we (as a society) can’t alter the course of anther humans life, just not end it. You’re right we should be respectful of the legal processes of other contries but that goes the other way as well. Australia’s policy is to not assist with cases until it is made clear that the death penatly will not be sought, China isn’t being respectful of that, nor of our policy of trying Australian cases in Australia.

#14
seepi6:29 pm, 04 Jul 05

The point about Chinese extradition policy is interesting.Perhaps Australia should implement this idea and bring back David Hicks and JP Whispelaire for trial in Australia.

#15
johnboy7:49 pm, 04 Jul 05

Plenty of countries we don’t extradite to. China in a matter such as this for example.

#16
bulldog11:15 am, 05 Jul 05

I’m not disagreeing with the fact that he should be tried in Australia for a crime committed here.

I was side-tracked by my contempt for the Australian legal system. I’m sure we’ve all had brushes with the inequities and injustices; but we’ll save it for another rant.

Until then areaman; we’ll agree to disagree.

#17
Mr Evil12:36 pm, 05 Jul 05

At least if they shoot the prick his organs will be put to good use. Maybe we can send Jon over there, and The Chinese could use his organs for some good too!

#18
Thumper1:31 pm, 05 Jul 05

The interesting point in all this is that if there is no concrete evidence against this guy, and there may not be, he may get off completely, which would be an absolute travesty of justice.

#19
simto1:41 pm, 05 Jul 05

It’s a travesty of justice if a person can’t get convicted due to lack of evidence?

Surely justice is only served if people are convicted because there is evidence to prove that they did it, not because you just sorta think they might possibly have done something but you’re not entirely sure.

#20
bulldog1:50 pm, 05 Jul 05

I think (I hope) Thumper is alluding to cases that go before a court that get thrown out becuase of a technicality when it should be clear cut.

I’ve seen it happen before; without going into detail it’s what I was refering to when I mentioned ‘inequities and injustices’.

#21
Maelinar2:12 pm, 05 Jul 05

perhaps we should bring back the honour system, and people paying ‘pennance’ for their crimes directly to the people that they have committed the crime against – or would that just be taking us back to the middle ages ?

It’s a simple fact that the justice system is flawed, the only problem is nobody has come up with a definitive way of dealing with the problem in a more mature way.

#22
bulldog2:28 pm, 05 Jul 05

The Chinese have a pretty definitive outlook. I don’t know if it’s ‘mature’ but it’s certainly effective.

Besides, who said this had to be constuctive criticism?

#23
Thumper2:58 pm, 05 Jul 05

Simpto,

I was referring to the fact that Stanhope refuses to let anyone provide evidence, or for the Chinese to obtain evidence, simply because the alledged culprit may be subject to the death penalty.

I would have thought that was obvious, but no….

#24
simto4:30 pm, 05 Jul 05

Well, he’s not stopping the Federal police from investigating on their own behalf, is he? Only stopping them from providing info to the Chinese police?

My understanding is this is a crime that was performed here. As such, it should be prosecuted and investigated here. What the chinese police have to do with the whole shebang has me completely confused.

Unless you know more about this and can enighten me?

#25
simto4:49 pm, 05 Jul 05

Simon has since read the Canberra Times article, and worked out that the bloke who (allegedly) did it is currently in custody in China.

I’m interested in why we should be certain that the Chinese police have the right guy, despite the fact that they don’t have sufficient evidence to get him convicted over there?

Particularly given that China is still a “People’s Democratic Republic” (i.e. a communist dictatorship) and therefore should be perfectly capable of creating their own evidence, if necessary?

Having read the Canberra Times article, yes, the federales are running a swifty here – it is very, very common practice to deny police co-operation until we get an assurance the death penalty will not be sought (what’s wrong with life imprisonment, people? Remember, this is in China, so things like human rights probably won’t come into it)

#26
Thumper8:19 am, 06 Jul 05

I have no problem with the ‘no death penalty clause’. I do have a problem with Stanhope’s attitude, given that it is in fact a Commonwealth responsibility and not a State or Territory responsibility.

I wonder if Stanhope is his haste to make idealistic foreign policy for the Republic of Canberra, may have slightly overstepped the mark.

The way I read it, Chinese investigators are not allowed to come to Canberra to gather information, and AFP are not allowed to provide information to their Chinese counterparts.

Any Boys in Blue that can correct me, please do.

Cheers

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.