Question:
Chen Guangcheng (born 12 November 1971) is a Chinese civil rights activist who has worked on human rights issues in rural areas of the People's Republic of China. Blind from an early age and self-taught in the law, Chen is frequently described as a "barefoot lawyer" who advocates for women's rights, land rights, and the welfare of the poor. He is best known for accusing people of abuses in official family-planning practices, often involving claims of violence and forced abortions. In 2005, Chen gained international recognition for organising a landmark class-action lawsuit against authorities in Linyi, Shandong province, for the excessive enforcement of the one-child policy.
On 7 September 2005, while Chen was in Beijing to publicize his class action lawsuit against the Linyi city family planning staff, he was reportedly abducted by security agents from Linyi and held for 38 hours. Recounting the incident to foreign journalists, Chen said that authorities threatened to levy criminal charges against him for providing state secrets or intelligence to foreign organizations. After Chen refused negotiations with local officials to cease his activism, Linyi authorities placed him under effective house arrest beginning in September 2005. When he attempted to escape in October, he was beaten.  Xinhua, the news agency of the Chinese government, stated that on 5 February 2006, Chen instigated others "to damage and smash cars belonging to the Shuanghou Police Station and the town government" as well as attack local government officials. Time reported that witnesses to Chen's protest disputed the government's version of events, and his lawyers argued that it was unlikely he could have committed the crimes due to his constant surveillance by police. Chen was removed from his house in March 2006 and was formally detained in June 2006 by Yinan county officials. He was scheduled to stand trial on 17 July 2006 on charges of destruction of property and assembling a crowd to disrupt traffic, but this was delayed at the request of the prosecution. According to Radio Free Asia and Chinese Human Rights Defenders, the prosecution delayed the trial because a crowd of Chen supporters gathered outside the courthouse. With only a few days' notice, authorities rescheduled Chen's trial for 18 August 2006.  On the eve of his trial, all three of his lawyers, including Xu Zhiyong of the Yitong Law Firm, were detained by Yinan police; two were released after being questioned. Neither Chen's lawyers nor his wife were allowed in the courtroom for the trial. Authorities appointed their own public defender for Chen just before the trial began. The trial lasted only two hours. On 24 August 2006, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months for "damaging property and organizing a mob to disturb traffic".  As a result of Chen's trial, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett selected his case for the cover of the British government's 2006 human rights report, stating concern over the handling of Chen's case and calling for the Chinese government "to prove its commitment to building rule of law." A Globe and Mail columnist also criticized the verdict, writing that "Even assuming [Chen] did damage 'doors and windows,' as well as cars, and interrupt traffic for three hours, it is difficult to argue a four-year prison sentence is somehow proportionate to the offence."  On 30 November 2006, Yinan County court upheld Chen's sentence, and on 12 January 2007, the Linyi Intermediate Court in Shandong Province rejected his final appeal. The same court had overturned his original conviction in December 2006, citing lack of evidence. However, Chen was convicted in a second trial on identical charges and given an identical sentence by the Yinan court. Following the trial, Amnesty International declared him to be a prisoner of conscience, "jailed solely for his peaceful activities in defence of human rights".
Answer this question using a quote from the text above:

Are there any other interesting aspects about this article?

Answer:
On the eve of his trial, all three of his lawyers, including Xu Zhiyong of the Yitong Law Firm, were detained by Yinan police;

Answer the question at the end by quoting:

George Galloway (born 16 August 1954) is a British politician, broadcaster, and writer. Between 1987 and 2015, with a gap in 2010-12, he represented four constituencies as a Member of Parliament, elected as a candidate for the Labour Party and later the Respect Party. After becoming the youngest ever Chairman of the Scottish Labour Party in 1981, he became General Secretary of the London-based charity War on Want in 1983, remaining in the post until elected as MP for Glasgow Hillhead (later Glasgow Kelvin) at the 1987 general election. In 2003, Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party, having been found guilty by the party's national constitutional committee of four of the five charges of bringing the party into disrepute, including having called on Arabs to fight British troops.
In 1998, Galloway founded the Mariam Appeal which was intended, according to its website's welcome page in 1999, "to campaign against sanctions on Iraq which are having disastrous effects on the ordinary people of Iraq". The campaign was named after Mariam Hamza, a child flown by the fund from Iraq to Britain to receive treatment for leukaemia. The intention was to raise awareness of the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of other Iraqi children, due to poor health conditions and lack of suitable medicines and facilities, and to campaign for the lifting of the Iraq sanctions that many maintained were responsible for that situation. In 1999, Galloway was criticised for spending Christmas in Iraq with Tariq Aziz, who was Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister at the time. In a 17 May 2005 hearing of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Galloway stated that he had many meetings with Aziz, and characterised their relationship as friendly. In all, he has admitted to more than ten meetings with Aziz.  The fund received scrutiny during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, after a complaint that Galloway used some donated money to pay for his travel expenses. He responded by stating that the expenses were incurred in his capacity as the Appeal's chairman. Although the Mariam Appeal was never a registered charity and never intended to be such, it was investigated by the Charity Commission. The report of this year-long inquiry, published in June 2004, found that the Mariam Appeal was undertaking charitable work (and so ought to have registered with them), but did not substantiate allegations that any funds had been misused. It emerged some years later that Galloway had appealed in a letter dated 24 April 2003 to Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, to stop the investigation into the Mariam Appeal. According to a report in The Times, after the letter was released under the Freedom of Information Act, Galloway falsely asserted that the Appeal "received no money from Iraq".  A further Charity Commission Report published on 7 June 2007 found that the Appeal had received funds from Fawaz Zureikat that originated from the Oil For Food programme, and concluded that:  Although Mr Galloway, Mr Halford and Mr Al-Mukhtar have confirmed that they were unaware of the source of Mr Zureikat's donations, the Commission has concluded that the charity trustees should have made further enquiries when accepting such large single and cumulative donations to satisfy themselves as to their origin and legitimacy. The Commission's conclusion is that the charity trustees did not properly discharge their duty of care as trustees to the Appeal in respect of these donations ... The Commission is also concerned, having considered the totality of the evidence before it, that Mr Galloway may also have known of the connection between the Appeal and the Programme.  Galloway, in response, stated: "I've always disputed the Commission's retrospective view that a campaign to win a change in national and international policy - a political campaign - was, in fact, a charity".

What was the Mariam Appeal?
was intended, according to its website's welcome page in 1999, "to campaign against sanctions on Iraq which are having disastrous effects on the ordinary people of Iraq".