By David Ferguson

On the 23rdof October 2008, it was announced that the European Parliament had awarded the 2008 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to China's dissident Hu Jia.

My personal view is that Hu Jia should not be in prison. I understand that he is a nuisance to the authorities, but his crimes are crimes of thought and speech. He does not pose any risk or danger to China or its people, and it seems to me that after thirty years of reform and opening-up, the country has reached the stage where it should be able to cope with the views of a person like Hu Jia without locking him up.

Nor, on the other hand, do I think that Hu Jia's activities offer anything very helpful to the people of China. His highlighting of abuses is not telling the country anything that it does not know. As I write this article, I have in mind a story that we in China.org have reported yesterday morning, where real – and fake – journalists were paid by the Huozhou Coal and Electric Group to cover up a mine accident in Shanxi Province.

Many such abuses exist and are openly discussed in China. They are regularly reported in the Chinese media, properly, and in detail. Some are dealt with by the authorities when they are uncovered. Others, no doubt, still escape the authorities' notice and go unpunished.

But Hu Jia's solutions to these problems are not realistic. Who is not in favor of "human rights"? But you cannot implement human rights by a decree from above – try, and all you will do is shift the balance of abuse from one group to another. It will take years of patient progress to create an environment where human rights are universally respected – years of patient education, legislation, and investigation and action against violators. That was the pattern in developed western countries, and it will be the pattern for China too.

A call for "democracy" is similarly na?ve. Anyone who believes that democracy is something that can be implemented overnight, and that it will suddenly make all your problems evaporate, needs to spend some time with the starving street-beggars of India, or the stricken people of Zimbabwe, or the citizens of some of the states of the former Soviet Union, who are watching powerless while their "democracies" turn into ugly oligarchies before their eyes, and ask themselves why "democracy" is serving these citizens so poorly.

To create a successful democracy is not an overnight exercise – it takes a massive investment of years and money and effort in creating the necessary political structures and processes, and in educating the electorate in how to use their vote in order to protect them from potential abuse. Nor is a vote in a democracy a magic wand. You can't eat it, or wear it, or shelter under it, or heat your home with it, or send your children to school to be educated by it.

But there is more to the issue of Hu Jia and the Sakharov Prize than the question of whether Hu Jia is right or wrong, a catalyst for progress, or a barrier to it. Behind it is yet another rather unpleasant story of western hypocrisy and double-standards.

Currently languishing in Barlinnie jail in the city of Glasgow – a prison that houses some of Britain’s most serious and most dangerous offenders – is a man called Stephen Gough. He has been in jail for most of the past two years. He is a former marine who served in his country's armed forces. Mr Gough believes that he is entitled to walk around as nature created him – in other words, naked. For this reason he is also known as "The Naked Rambler".

He has been repeatedly arrested, convicted, and jailed for two offences. One is Breach of the Peace – his nakedness is considered to be an offence against society that might cause other people to become violent or disorderly. The other is Contempt of Court – he refuses to wear clothes when he makes his court appearances.

Mr Gough is not a violent or dangerous man. He poses no threat whatsoever to the security of the United Kingdom, or to any individual member of British society. He is, in fact, utterly harmless. But it is possible that he will spend the rest of his life in jail, because he refuses to give up on his principle. Every time he is released from prison, he "reoffends" and is put back in again. When murderers, and rapists, and terrorists have served their sentences and been released, Mr Gough could well still find himself in jail. He will stay there until he finally bows the knee to his prosecutors and jailers.

His real "crime" is one of thought and belief, and a refusal to relent to the British authorities on principle. And his story carries a very clear message: All societies, no matter how "free" or "democratic" they claim to be, will eventually impose sanctions – up to and including the removal of liberty – on an individual who insists on placing him or herself at odds with the authorities that govern that society, no matter how harmless his or her actions might be.

As with Hu Jia, so with Stephen Gough. As with China, so with the United Kingdom. Perhaps China needs to create a "Freedom of Thought" prize and award it to Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler. Perhaps Hu Jintao needs to have a quiet word with the European leaders on the subject, the next time they come to China to deliver a homily on the country's shortcomings.

(China.org.cn October 31, 2008)