Patrick Cusworth: Chen Guangcheng – a hero for our times

Chen receives his award from Fiona Bruce MP and Lord Alton of Liverpool.

Patrick Cusworth is Deputy Chair of Brentford and Isleworth Conservative Association. Follow Patrick on Twitter. 

It is not often that one meets a hero – and this was no ordinary hero. Last Monday evening, a packed Grand Committee room rose in applause to greet Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese lawyer, who was presented with the inaugural Westminster Award by Fiona Bruce, the MP for Congleton, and the crossbench peer Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his work in promoting human rights, human life and human dignity.

Chen first drew the ire of the Communist authorities in his local province when he used class-action lawsuits to defend farmers in land disputes. This anger turned to outright aggression when, refusing to bow to intimidation, Chen exposed systematic forced abortions and sterilisations carried out under the China’s infamous one-child policy. For this, he was sentenced to four years imprisonment, at the conclusion of which he was placed under house arrest. During this time, both Chen and his wife were subjected to beatings, until his well-documented escape and sanctuary in the U.S embassy, and the subsequent negotiations under which China reluctantly allowed him to live in America.

Speaking through an interpreter, Chen began his acceptance speech by underlining what he sees as the biggest problem not only in China but in the world today, namely the ruling Chinese Communist Party:

“They are a dictatorship, and the nature of this dictatorship is the destruction of human life… they can take your life as well as your property”. This is expressed most viscerally in the one-child policy, which began in 1979 and “since then any respect for life has disappeared completely from China”. Those who dare speak out against the policy, let alone attempt to have a second child, are subject to penalties varying in severity. Those who, for example, “opposed the one-child policy can never get anywhere in their job, no matter how good they are”. Such punitive measures can take more extreme forms, however. “In 2005, in my city alone, there were over 120,000 forced abortions and sterilisations”. In extreme cases, “women who were 8 or 9 months pregnant were dragged through the hospital to have forced abortions performed on them. Their families, friends & even neighbours were dragged from their homes, tortured for days, and forcibly sterilised”.

Patrick Cusworth: Let’s face it, waterboarding is torture

Patrick Cusworth, a public affairs consultant and committee member of Hornsey and Wood Green Conservative Association, says Hague should pressure America to stop the practice of waterboarding.

Despite disagreeing with him on virtually any subject you could mention, I must confess to being a fan of the contrarian author/journalist Christopher Hitchens.  No matter how controversial the subject of his polemics, I regularly find it impossible not to be challenged by his arguments.  Perhaps most impressively of all, he is also one of the few journalists who are prepared to put their own convictions to the test – an all-too-rare quality in the champagne socialist world of journalism dominated by the likes of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Polly Toynbee.  In my opinion, it is this exact quality that is the reason that Hitchens’ latest article for Vanity Fair has caused such a stir amongst all sides of the media.

Writing in the online American journal Slate at the end of last year, Hitchens made the suggestion that “extreme interrogation” does not necessarily constitute “outright torture”.  On publication of these comments, the former member of SWP pre-runner International Socialism and now apologist-in-chief for the war and current occupation of Iraq was accused of supporting the use of “waterboarding” as a means of interrogating suspects of terrorism.  Challenged by Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter to be put through the experience himself, Hitchens agreed to be placed in the hands of the elite U.S. Special Forces team skilled in the advanced form of training SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape).

Patrick Cusworth: Free speech does not mean that we are therefore encouraged to promote or support those who preach a dogma of hate

Patrick Cusworth is a public affairs consultant, and a Committee member of Hornsey and Wood Green Conservative Association.

The Oxford Union’s decision to play host to BNP leader Nick Griffin and convicted Holocaust denier David Irving in a debate last Monday evening on the issue of free speech was always going to generate discussion.  The motion, which effectively called on the two far-right apologists to justify their right to speak at the event, was described by Shadow Defence Minister Dr. Julian Lewis, who resigned his membership of the Union, as “sheer vanity”.  In support of the Union’s decision was local Oxford MP Evan Harris, who highlighted the importance of tolerance in recognising the right to free speech of even those who hold the most noxious views.  As Voltaire’s maxim goes, while we may despise what a person such as Griffin or Irving might say, we must defend their right to say it. 

As someone who considers himself a liberal Conservative, I (like both Dr Lewis and Evan Harris) understand the need for temperance against unilaterally banning individuals or groups whose opinions are distasteful or even offensive to the majority.  However I must disagree profoundly with both Dr Harris and the Union’s logic on this issue.

In its defence, the Union Committee may claim that since its purpose was to stimulate debate over free speech, the event proved a success before the debate even opened due to the publicity and discussion generated by the decision.  But then, pseudo-liberal gestures such as this are easy coming from those who will not be forced to deal with the consequences of such “free speech”. Of all the assembled Dons and students gathered at the debate how many will have hailed from – or will return to – the wards of Barking, Dagenham and Redbridge, where the BNP have slowly been gathering electoral momentum? While such high-minded ideals are fine for those who return will return to the middle-class insulation of Surrey, Devon and Islington, the proposition is a very different one for those facing the prospect of a far-right groups taking over positions of power on local councils.