谈谈阿克毛，马克思和布朗首相

chrisxsy

相关链接：

1）丛日云：也谈阿克毛事件中英国人的“双重标准”
2）选举网：要是让你表态你会说什么？
3）丛日云：何时不再听到喊杀声？

　　对于英国毒贩被处以死刑这件事情，我想要谈一下自己的几点看法。
　　其一，死刑尚未被主权国家定为非法。中国是一个主权国家，死刑的法律条款已经存在很多年了。这个可怜的家伙被判死刑，并不算量刑不当。
　　其二，我想说说人权的事。死刑是一种必要的恶，因为它的确可以起到威慑作用，使人们轻易不敢犯重罪。而且，“杀人偿命，天经地义”，这对我们来说是一种本能，而死刑恰恰满足了这种心理需求。我们不妨站在一个想要贩毒的人的角度来想想--我今年５３了，什么苦头都吃过了，我巴不得赌一把呢：如果我成功了，我们家就发达了，或者至少能比以前过得好些；如果贩毒没贩成被抓起来了，那无论是住在中国关外国人的监狱里，还是呆在英国的牢房里，也未必就比蜗居在波兰的小破公寓里差到哪儿去。要是我的父母或者孩子被杀了，而杀人犯没被处决的话，平心而论，我会感到非常失望。当然，如果你的觉悟高到能宽恕杀害自己家人的罪犯，那我不得不说，我钦佩你。但是我作为一个纳税人，凭什么要为一个杀人犯的无期徒刑埋单？那么，没有犯谋杀罪的人，是不是就一定不该被判死刑呢？我觉得，与一个杀死自己爱人的年轻人相比，麦道夫所造成的损失要更大。如果我的存款和养老金被麦道夫骗走了，我肯定支持死刑。有没有无辜的人被误杀了？有，肯定有。不过我认为，这个数量非常低。不要忘记，相比于全世界６０亿人口，被判死刑的人可谓少之又少。既然活在这个世界上，人们就应该为厄运和残酷的现实做好准备。
　　其三，欧洲人的看法。我尊重欧洲人对于死刑的看法。但是很抱歉，我的文明程度没有他们那么高，我并不认为死刑有什么可耻的。在过去的５００年里，尤其是２０世纪上半叶，欧洲人造成的死亡数不胜数，连他们自己人都不放过。现在他们变得文明起来了，我希望他们能一直文明下去。说不定随着全球变暖，欧洲天越来越热，那儿的人就不想吃肉了。那时候这些自以为是，自私自利的人就会立法禁止屠杀动物，认为所有肉食者都不文明……这也是犹未可知的。
　　其四，英国方面的反应。根据ＢＢＣ的报道，大部分英国人并不认为这次处决有什么问题。一些人说，有必要尊重他国的法律；另一些人甚至希望在英国恢复死刑。所以说，大部分英国人还是通情理的。另一方面，英国政府试图阻止对阿克毛的处决，这也是可以理解的，甚至值得称颂。但是他们本可以用一种更好的方式处理这件事情。请求和要求是有区别的。戈登·布朗声称他“感到惊骇”，这并不是他的真心话。我怀疑，即便是一个胆怯的女学生听到这一消息，也不会感到惊骇。如果伦敦方面在执行死刑之前试图与中国进行秘密谈判，而在处决后表示遗憾，谁也不会怪他们。但要是老打着人权的旗号，左一个“非常惊骇”，右一个“强烈谴责”，我只能是无动于衷--不久前，某个伊斯兰极端组织曾试图策划一场反对阿富汗战争的抗议游*，这位布朗首相也曾感到“惊骇”。如果我没记错的话，他本想禁止这场游*。我并不喜欢这个组织，不过我认为禁止游*并不会为英国的传统和原则带来荣耀。这一伟大的国家容忍了坐在大英博物馆里批评资本主义的马克思，英国人似乎很赞同康德对于道德的看法，即人不应该被用作达成某种目的的手段，但他们也许忘记了另外两个伟大的思想家--马尔塞斯和边沁。如果你认为他们俩的观点多少有点道理，你可能就会以另一种道德观看待死刑：在这个过分拥挤的世界上，它代表了最大多数人的极上欢乐。我知道，英国人已经失去了他们一度引以为傲的海军力量，但曾几何时，他们的精神力量和酷劲也随风而逝了呢？
　　据说英国的高中历史课本里很少提到鸦片战争，他们肯定有自己的考虑。而中国的课本重点叙述了这段历史，这当然也是有所意图的。鸦片战争和这次处决有什么相似之处么？肯定有。一群群英国商人向中国走私鸦片，而且一箭双雕：不但耗尽了中国的财富，而且损害了中国人的健康。在中国推行其禁烟法律后，英国人用战争教训了那些不文明的中国人。而这次带着海洛因进入中国的人，正是当年那些走私贩子的历史回响。英国人要求停止这一不文明的处决。区别在于，这次贩毒是个别行为，是个小插曲，而英国政府没有威胁要进行战争。
　　但这并不是说中国政府和中国人做的都是好事。在中国之外批评北京简直和鞭笞死马、和风车比武一样，毫无用处，但我还是要批评一部分中国人--你们在１５０年前就抽鸦片抽上了瘾，没人逼你们，但你们还是抽了，而且尝到了恶果。今天，还是有很多人喜欢抽烟，其中极小部分人还吸毒。一样，谁也没逼你们。所以，别怪别人，要怪就怪自己吧。
　　ＢＢＣ今天早上报道，说中国正在试图立法禁止随地吐痰。如果一个国家的人们不但不排队，而且随地吐痰，那我毫无疑问地会认为这个国家的人不讲文明，因为这种行为对谁都没好处。彻头彻尾的愚蠢！没道德！的确，我不该采用双重标准，自相矛盾。如果大部分中国人喜欢吐痰，痛恨排队，那么这种行为是不是符合大多数人的利益？或许。但在我看来，民主不应该被用在这里。别管是民主还是专制，任何政体，只要能解决这个问题，我都会为其鼓掌喝彩。
英文原文：
Several points.

First, Capital punishment has not been outlawed by sovereign countries. China is a sovereign country, and the law has existed. The capital punishment for the poor guy is not inappropriate.

Second, human rights. The capital punishment is a necessary evil, because it does deter most people from committing heinous crimes, and does satisfy our instinctive urge to seek revenge. Put yourself in the shoes of the guy. I was 53-year-old and lived a miserable life. I would be more than happy to take the risk. If I made it, my family and I might become rich, or at least well-off. If I failed, a Chinese prison for foreigners or a British prison cell may not be worse than a crappy apartment in Poland. Supposed my parents and children were murdered, I would be very disappointed that the murder would not be killed. If you are so high-minded as to pardon the murder who killed your family, I admire you. But why should I, a tax payer, pay for life imprisonment of a murderer? How about capital punishment for crimes that are not related to killings? Some crimes are even worse than killings. I think that Madoff caused more damage than a young man who killed his lover. If I lost my saving and pension with Madoff, I would support the capital punishment. How about innocent victims? There have been some. But I guess that the number is extremely low. Do not forget the number of capital punishment in this world of 6 billion is extreeeeeemly low in the first place. Living in this world, we should prepare for bad luck and cruel reality.


Third, the European view. I respect European’s view of capital punishment. But I am sorry that I am not as civilized as they are, and feel no shame about it. The Europeans caused so many deaths, even to themselves, in the past 500 years, especially in the first half of the 20the century. Now they became civilized, and I hope that they will remain so. If global warming made Europe a hot place, people might lack appetite for meat. It is not unthinkable that those self-righteous and self-serving people would ban the slaughter of animals and call all beefeaters uncivilized.

Fourth, British reactions. Most British, based on their comments on the BBC, had no problems with the prosecution. Some say that respect for other country’s law is necessary, and others even wish to reinstate capital punishment. So most Brits are reasonable. The British government tried to prevent the execution, which was understandable and even commendable. But they can do it in a better way. There is a difference between making requests and making demands. Gordon Brown was appalled, which was not genuine. I doubt that even a timid schoolgirl would not have been appalled by hearing this, since nothing indicated that that guy would have been spared. If London tried to make a secret deal before the death and expressed regret after it, nobody would blame them. A false consternation and a strong condemnation in the name of human rights do not impress me. The other day, the same Brown was appalled again by a radical Islamic group’s plan to stage a protest against the war in Afghanistan. If I remember correctly, he wanted to ban the march. I did not like the group, but thought that a ban would not honor Britain’s traditions and principles. This great country tolerated Marx, who sat in the British Museum to criticize capitalism. Brits seem to subscribe to Kant’s view of morality, which implies no humans should be used as a mean to achieve an end, but they forget their two great thinkers –Malthus and Bentham. If you think that these two make some sense, you might think about another moral view that capitals punishment represents the greatest happiness of the greatest number in this overcrowded world. I know Brits lost its naval power a while ago, but since when have they lost their mental power and cool manners?

It was said that the British textbooks in high schools barely mentioned the Opium War, for good reasons, I guess. The Chinese have highlighted this, also for good reasons. Are there similarities between the opium war and the current execution? There are. Groups of British merchants smuggled opium to China. The stone killed two birds: it drained Chinese wealth and damaged Chinese health. After the Chinese enforced its law, the British used war to punish the uncivilized Chinese. This time, a guy carrying heroin into China is redolent of those smugglers. The British made demands to stop uncivilized execution. The differences are that the crime was an isolated and small episode, and the British government did not threaten wars.

All these should not imply that the Chinese government and people are doing good. To criticizing Beijing from outside of China is like flogging a dead horse or tilting at a windmill, but let me offer some criticism of some Chinese people. You got addicted to opium more than 150 years ago. Nobody forced you to do that, but you did and suffered. Nowadays, many Chinese still enjoy smoking and a tiny group use drugs. Again, nobody forced you to do that. Do not blame others, but blame yourself.

The BBC reported this morning that China is trying to ban spiting in public. If people do not line up but spit in public, I have no problem calling this country uncivilized, because such behavior does not serve anybody’s interests.  Absolutely foolish and unethical! I should not contradict myself by adopting a double standard here. If most Chinese enjoyed spitting and hated to line up, does it amount to the greatest happiness of the great number? Maybe. But personally, I think that democracy should not apply here, and I would applaud any regime, which would do something in this regard.
(转载本文请注明“中国选举与治理网”首发)