China human rights?
Zhensheng Lou
Danish are going to press the human rights on China in the U.N.
What is the opinion of ordernay Europeans? How much do the governments and
people in the Europe how Chinese people are thinking? I need to know the
original thoughts to open my eyes. Thank you.
Jacksen Lou
Canada
Stuart Honan
lou...@duke.usask.ca (Zhensheng Lou) wrote:
I personally think the there is a general consensus that China is
still flaunting human rights. One way to see if this is true or not
is to keep an eye on what happens in HK.
TTFN
Stuat
remove this]@worldonline.nl Herman Beun
Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote in article
<5ice7b$d...@tribune.usask.ca>...
> Danish are going to press the human rights on China in the U.N.
This Danish action has a little history: A few weeks ago, the human rights
situation in China was criticised by the Dutch foreign minister Van Mierlo
in a speech he made at the UN Committee for Human Rights in Geneva as
EU-chairman and with the knowledge of the other EU-members. During the
speech, the Chinese representative protested strongly and tried even to
interrupt. Later, the Chinese government repeated its protests saying that
the Netherlands (not so much the EU) would be held responsible for the
contents of the speech.
Now last week, the EU was preparing resolutions protesting against human
rights violations in several countries, among which Iran, Iraq, Zaire and
China. That is: the Dutch presidency wanted to include human rights in
China, but four EU-members (France, Germany, Italy, Spain) objected against
that. This is somewhat surprising as they did agree with the UN speech of
only a few weeks earlier. Van Mierlo said the EU would lose all its
credibility if only violations of human rights in small countries would be
protested against: "Universal values have to be treated in a universal
way", and threatened that if the four countries would continue to object
against including China, the Dutch presidency would stop preparing protests
against human rights violations in any other country as well.
Last Sunday however he gave in to the pressure of the big four ("A personal
defeat"), letting, as he said, his duties as EU-chairman prevail over his
opinion as foreign minister of the Netherlands.
The result of all this is the resolution Denmark (as an individual country)
is now going to submit. France, Germany, Spain and Italy have said they are
not going to support the Danish resolution. The other EU members have said
they would. The Dutch presidency has announced a discussion about the
foundations of the EU's human rights policy.
China has thanked France for its "cooperative attitude", and threatened
Denmark that "political and economic relations would be heavily damaged".
To say something in favour of the UK for once ;-) : Note that the UK has
not joined in the apalling cynism of the other four Big Nuisances, even
though (or maybe because?) its relations with China are rather tense at the
moment because of Hong-Kong.
> What is the opinion of ordernay Europeans? How much do the
> governments and people in the Europe how Chinese people are
> thinking? I need to know the original thoughts to open my eyes.
With pleasure :-)
Your question about how much governments and people in Europe know about
how the Chinese people think is an interesting one. I think the answer is:
far too little, unfortunately. But then: does the Chinese government itself
know what the Chinese people are thinking, without asking them or letting
them speak?
Your question however was if they knew _how_ they are thinking, with which
I think you were hinting at the difference most often mentioned between
east and west: that western culture concentrates more on the individual,
whereas eastern culture concentrates more on the group.
Seen in this light, human rights and democracy are typically western
things, and some governments in the east also try to depict them as such:
as typically western cultural imperialism. This is however not an analysis
I agree with: I _do_ see human rights and democracy as universal values
that have nothing to do with any specific culture. I think that even within
a culture where being useful to the group comes at the first place (and
isn't that more indirectly the "purpose" of the western culture as well?),
the interests of the group are best served by the truth being allowed to
come forward.
And allowing the truth means freedom of expression, i.e. allowing opinions
that dissent from what the majority thinks, as how can you know an opinion
is wrong without even examining it? It also means democracy, examining all
possible opinions for their usefulness, and adopting those that most people
think are most useful. And it means respecting the well-being of the
individual as the best way to ensure his/her well-functioning in the
interest of all. Just exploring some thoughts, very fashionable in this
group these days ;-)
--
Herman Beun
http://www.worldonline.nl/~chbeun (*NEW* Now 10% better!!)
e-mail: CHB...@WorldOnLine.NL
Phil Hunt
In article <5ie4d7$c4b$2...@despair.u-net.com> s...@n.u.c "Stuart Honan" writes:
> I personally think the there is a general consensus that China is
> still flaunting human rights.
I think you mean "flouting".
--
Phil Hunt. See <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/index.htm>
for info on Eurolang / Politics / Voting Systems / Basic Income.
Stuart Honan
ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt) wrote:
>In article <5ie4d7$c4b$2...@despair.u-net.com> s...@n.u.c "Stuart Honan" writes:
>> I personally think the there is a general consensus that China is
>> still flaunting human rights.
> ^^^^^^^^^
>I think you mean "flouting".
<bashes computer several times>
Stupid thing :-) I did. Thanks
TTFN
Stuart
Zhensheng Lou
: Herman Beun (CHBeun[anti-spam,removethis]@WorldOnLine.NL) wrote:
: Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote in article
: <5ice7b$d...@tribune.usask.ca>...
... (deleted to save resources)
: > What is the opinion of ordernay Europeans? How much do the
: > governments and people in the Europe how Chinese people are
: > thinking? I need to know the original thoughts to open my eyes.
: Your question about how much governments and people in Europe know about
: how the Chinese people think is an interesting one. I think the answer is:
: far too little, unfortunately. But then: does the Chinese government itself
: know what the Chinese people are thinking, without asking them or letting
: them speak?
Thank you for your informative response, first.
If neither the government of China nor the ones in the Europe know how the
Chinese are perceiving, what is the point for them to argue about? The people
in China should have a loudest say about their own rights. While some people
in the west think they can act as savers, the recent public survey among the
Chinese showed that the majority of the pool disagreed the human rights
censorship on China, and regarded such an action was more targeting the
interests of the west, rather than the real human rights of Chinese people.
To many people, the action was a bully. The resentment was also seen in a
book "China can say no", authored by several young people. What will Danish
feel if China pushes a similar motion in the UN, which was not welcomed by
the majority of the Danish, but alleged by China that it is good for them?
The human rights condition in China needs to be improved, so do in many other
countries. But when China's human rights is now ever better than in its
history, and when it came to the world's spotlight after the former Soviet
Union collapsed, how can the people avoid thinking that there is something
under this coat?
: Your question however was if they knew _how_ they are thinking, with which
: I think you were hinting at the difference most often mentioned between
: east and west: that western culture concentrates more on the individual,
: whereas eastern culture concentrates more on the group.
: Seen in this light, human rights and democracy are typically western
: things, and some governments in the east also try to depict them as such:
: as typically western cultural imperialism. This is however not an analysis
: I agree with: I _do_ see human rights and democracy as universal values
: that have nothing to do with any specific culture. I think that even within
: a culture where being useful to the group comes at the first place (and
: isn't that more indirectly the "purpose" of the western culture as well?),
: the interests of the group are best served by the truth being allowed to
: come forward.
Just cannot think of anything that is not related to the life environment -
culture. Free speech is good, but what kind of speech you cannot have in the
streets in China? We visited China in July-August of 1995, and witnessed that
people there can talk about almost everything publically: politics, government
policy, officials or leaders, etc. The only thing that you may be careful in
talking is the party's rulling legitimacy , which is written in the nation's
contitution. In fact, people are just so busy in life that you may hardly find
a partner to talk about politics. We feel sort of funny that the concern over
the human rights in China is much more for the people outside China to worry
about!
When so many people in the western society care about Chinese rights, while
knowing little about the reality in China; when so many people in the Chinese
society are indifferent about their own `rights', and do not see the
care-giving-image as those who want to bring about, do we need to re-think?
Thank you again for the serious discussion.
: And allowing the truth means freedom of expression, i.e. allowing opinions
: that dissent from what the majority thinks, as how can you know an opinion
: is wrong without even examining it? It also means democracy, examining all
: possible opinions for their usefulness, and adopting those that most people
: think are most useful. And it means respecting the well-being of the
: individual as the best way to ensure his/her well-functioning in the
: interest of all. Just exploring some thoughts, very fashionable in this
: group these days ;-)
: --
: Herman Beun
: http://www.worldonline.nl/~chbeun (*NEW* Now 10% better!!)
: e-mail: CHB...@WorldOnLine.NL
--
Zhensheng Lou
Prairie Swine Centre
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, S.K.
Canada S7H 5N9
Tel: (306)373-9922
Fax: (306)955-2510
remove this]@worldonline.nl Herman Beun
I wrote to Zhensheng Lou:
>: Your question about how much governments and people in Europe
>: know about how the Chinese people think is an interesting one.
>: I think the answer is: far too little, unfortunately. But then:
>: does the Chinese government itself know what the Chinese people
>: are thinking, without asking them or letting them speak?
Firstly, thank you too for being willing to discuss this matter seriously!
I have tried to be as diplomatic in my response as I possibly can ;-) (but
then, I have to warn you that this was also the last smiley of this
article)
Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote in article
<5ii0nt$f...@tribune.usask.ca>...
>If neither the government of China nor the ones in the Europe know
>how the Chinese are perceiving, what is the point for them to argue
>about? The people in China should have a loudest say about their own
>rights. While some people in the west think they can act as savers,
>the recent public survey among the Chinese showed that the majority
>of the pool disagreed the human rights censorship on China, and
>regarded such an action was more targeting the interests of the
>west, rather than the real human rights of Chinese people.
I am amazed, how can you say this? Of course the people in China should
have the loudest say about their own rights, I couldn't agree more!! That
is precisely what the Danish resolution asks, but what the Chinese
government is denying its own people. Methinks you are reverting logic
here, and not just a little bit.
Then, I do not know what public survey you are talking about, but I have to
say that I am rather sceptical about surveys coming from a country locking
up hundreds of thousands of its citizens in re-education camps for
disagreeing with the government. Do you realise that if Canada had such a
policy you would probably in such a camp yourself?
Finally, 'targeting the interests of the west' is a good one. Criticising
human rights in China and being disgracefully threatened by this giant is
not serving the interests of western countries at all, and this is
certainly true for small countries like Denmark or the Netherlands. Notice
that these two countries have received more threats than for instance the
USA, which also supports the resolution but is too big to be bothered.
Actually, it is the other way round: _Not_ criticising human rights in
China is the best way to serve western economic interests, and that is why
so few countries stand up against it. After all, China is an emerging
market of 1 billion consumers and every country in the west is just craving
to do business there. Is it in their interest to make the Chinese
government angry? Note also that during the past years, China has always
succeeded in mobilising sufficient opposition against UN resolutions about
their human rights.
In this light it is also very interesting that France, the country that was
so explicitly thanked by China for leading the opposition against the
resolution within the EU, has proposed two days ago to lift the EU arms
embargo against China because that country has promised for the n-th time
to sign the same minor UN agreement. Forgive me for being cynical, but
France is the country that sells its exocets to almost any country in the
world, provided it is a dictatorship? Another interesting thing is that the
list of countries that have announced that they would not support the
Danish resolution, apart from the four EU members I mentioned, includes
also Japan and Australia, both of them countries with strong interests in
China! So who is serving whose interests actually?
Finally, when France received worldwide criticism for their nuclear tests,
they said: Why only us, and not China which is also doing nuclear tests?
The answer of course is that France is not big enough to be immune for
these protests, like China is. No, there is no reason whatsoever to feel
compassion for the Chinese government; it is perfectly capable of fighting
for its own interests with all the means a Big Bully can dispose of.
>The human rights condition in China needs to be improved, so
>do in many other countries.
That was precisely the idea behind the Dutch action in the EU: There is no
reason to single out China as if it was the only country violating human
rights, but there is no reason to exclude it from protests either. Remember
that the EU was preparing resolutions against a whole series of countries,
but that France, Germany, Italy and Spain wanted to exclude China from that
list. Not because they believe the situation is better in China, but
because China is a big country. Spineless weasles.
>But when China's human rights is now ever better than in its
>history, and when it came to the world's spotlight after the
>former Soviet Union collapsed, how can the people avoid
>thinking that there is something under this coat?
The new coat of the emperor. I tried to explain that there wasn't any,
although some people seem to think the opposite.
>Just cannot think of anything that is not related to the life
>environment - culture. Free speech is good, but what kind of
>speech you cannot have in the streets in China?
Free speech is good, but it should not be misused, eh?
>We visited China in July-August of 1995, and witnessed that
>people there can talk about almost everything publically:
>politics, government policy, officials or leaders, etc. The
>only thing that you may be careful in talking is the party's
>rulling legitimacy , which is written in the nation's
>contitution.
Telling. Talk about everything, as long as it doesn't get substantial.
Otherwise we put you in a labour camp together with the other Tien-an-menh
students.
>In fact, people are just so busy in life that you may hardly
>find a partner to talk about politics.
Sure. And the reason that 99% of the people turns up at elections, and that
99% of them votes for the government is because they are so extremely happy
with it. I am being cynical again.
>We feel sort of funny that the concern over
>the human rights in China is much more for the people
>outside China to worry about!
If the Chinese are not allowed to, who else is going to worry about the
human rights of the labourers in the camps, the tortured and killed in the
prisons, the people in Tibet and the people who just can not help having
their own thoughts?
Regards,
Jeremiah Wilton
Herman Beun wrote:
>
> I am amazed, how can you say this? Of course the people in China should
> have the loudest say about their own rights, I couldn't agree more!! That
> is precisely what the Danish resolution asks, but what the Chinese
> government is denying its own people. Methinks you are reverting logic
> here, and not just a little bit.
No, indeed. The Danish resolution sought censure of the Chinese
government without an ounce of understanding of the feelings of the
Chinese peopleon the subject. If your image of life in China is "locking
up hundreds of thousands of its citizens in re-education camps for
disagreeing with the government," you have been watching too many
Western news broadcasts. Life in China these days is very open, and
people speak without fear of retribution.
You have to have a thorough understanding of the culture of a country to
comment on their system of gevernment. Moreover, you have to have some
semblance of an idea of the feelings of that country's people in order
to purport to speak on their behalf.
> Telling. Talk about everything, as long as it doesn't get substantial.
> Otherwise we put you in a labour camp together with the other Tien-an-menh
> students.
Now it is clear to me that you lack any understanding of Chinese
politics whatsoever. 6.4.89 was a complicated political event, not a
simple crushing of a peaceful movement by a unilaterally hardline
government. Most of the protest leaders are in foreign countries. As
for free speech, you need to understand that the Chinese have been
repeatedly the victims of colonial invaders. The one thing that the
government and the people of China find distasteful is a person who runs
to the foreign media with exaggerated claims of injustice, and
expressions of admiration for a foreign political culture.
Politics are culturally based, not universal. They are not even
universal within one country. Insisting on standard terms and
expectations in political thought throughout the world is the worst kind
of cultural hegemony.
--
Jeremiah Wilton Web page: http://feng.spry.com:2150/jw/index
---------------------------------------------------------------
China: The future is now.
liv...@jnx.com
In article <5j8otb$f...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>
> What the Danish did was just like a dog barking a wrong tree.
> Please go to China to see it for yourself, instead of being
> treated by the western median stereotypes, you will be impressed
> by its dynamics and openness in either economy or polotics.
> You will be more amazed that the public survey re human rights
> in China was conducted outside China, by a group of former
> TianAnMen democratic demonstrators! The result can supprize
> you more that what I moderately presented before.
I have no doubt that you are correct. After all, many western
writers went to the USSR in the thirties and came back raving
about how the USSR was the future of humanity. Red Cross
delegations went to concentration camps in Germany, and came
back to report that the prisoners were well treated.
It's amazing what you can learn on a supervised tour.
But I have a different question for you. Will you still be
saying how free China is today, ten years from today's day?
jon.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Zhensheng Lou
: Jeremiah Wilton (jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM) wrote:
: Herman Beun wrote:
: >
: > I am amazed, how can you say this? Of course the people in China should
: > have the loudest say about their own rights, I couldn't agree more!! That
: > is precisely what the Danish resolution asks, but what the Chinese
: > government is denying its own people. Methinks you are reverting logic
: > here, and not just a little bit.
What the Danish did was just like a dog barking a wrong tree. Please go to
China to see it for yourself, instead of being treated by the western median
stereotypes, you will be impressed by its dynamics and openness in either
economy or polotics. You will be more amazed that the public survey re human
rights in China was conducted outside China, by a group of former TianAnMen
democratic demonstrators! The result can supprize you more that what I
moderately presented before.
The situation in China is completely different from that of 8 years ago.
Beyond you imagination? China has changed much faster than those with
cold-war stereotypes in the western media. Unfortunately, such a media
educated you so effectively.
What happens in China is actually creating a new era of human civilization,
which will certainly attract much of criticism or bully from the current world
dominators, who always dream that the today's aggression-based world hirachies
will last forever.
C Malte Lewan
Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
> No, indeed. The Danish resolution sought censure of the Chinese
> government without an ounce of understanding of the feelings of the
> up hundreds of thousands of its citizens in re-education camps for
> Western news broadcasts.
Yes, it tends to be like that that some of us do. So right, I too, get
my part of the western media conspiracy.
> You have to have a thorough understanding of the culture of a country to
> comment on their system of gevernment. Moreover, you have to have some
> semblance of an idea of the feelings of that country's people in order
> to purport to speak on their behalf.
That's what makes this issue so comfortable for us in the West: we can
simply speak on behalf of some particular individuals, namely the
political prisoners that we know by name. We don't accept that they are
in prison for what they have done (= said). For some reason, the Chinese
government doesn't just release them and escape the criticism. Is it
maybe because such a lax attitude would leave the doors open to groups
openly organising themselves and a real debate with public demands for a
change would arise? Maybe the peoples of China aren't so happy with
everything that some here claim that the regime can allow themselves to
be judged in a free public debate?
> 6.4.89 was a complicated political event, not a
> simple crushing of a peaceful movement by a unilaterally hardline
> government. Most of the protest leaders are in foreign countries. As
> for free speech, you need to understand that the Chinese have been
> repeatedly the victims of colonial invaders. The one thing that the
> government and the people of China find distasteful is a person who runs
> to the foreign media with exaggerated claims of injustice, and
> expressions of admiration for a foreign political culture.
I hope this is an explanation and not an excuse. The same statements can
be made for different reasons Germans could have of being anti-semitist
in the 1930's. They found certain jewish behaviours distasteful for this
or that reason (historic or otherwise). They can be explanations but
never excuses for the actions they took at that time.
> Politics are culturally based, not universal.
Wrong, human rights are universal, not culturally based. And they never
will be.
The West meddling in Chinese affairs is to me an extension of the moral
principle allowing and obligating me to meddle if my nextdoor neighbour
beats his wife whenever she speaks up (mind you, my nextdoor neighbour
isn't of the exact same culture as I am - he's born and raised in the
country side 10 km away). I care equally about the rights of the wife of
my "neighbour" that happens to live in China. As Jorma Kyppö (t.p.e-u
debater) simply and eloquently put it: "It's a common world.". And
nation states (and their borders) are just results of historic processes
that could have been different as a result of chance. They certainly put
no bounderies on human solidarity and responsibility to one another.
Or are you saying that a Chinese doesn't care if his neighbour beats his
wife (or kills her)? It would be meddling with the "internal affairs" of
another family. Then, I'd really grant you a significant difference in
culture in this field. I'd still say that such a culture in an important
aspect would be a lower kind of culture that doesn't deserve the same
amount of respect and frankly should be saved from itself (again: in
this aspect).
--
Malte Lewan Longa Onivarsiteid, Scania, EO Tengtcen ølle redgijonal!
c...@df.lth.se http://www.df.lth.se/~cml Always think regionally!
Zhensheng Lou
: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
: In article <5j8otb$f...@tribune.usask.ca>,
: Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
: >
: > What the Danish did was just like a dog barking a wrong tree.
: > Please go to China to see it for yourself, instead of being
: > treated by the western median stereotypes, you will be impressed
: > by its dynamics and openness in either economy or polotics.
: > You will be more amazed that the public survey re human rights
: > in China was conducted outside China, by a group of former
: > TianAnMen democratic demonstrators! The result can supprize
: > you more that what I moderately presented before.
: I have no doubt that you are correct. After all, many western
: writers went to the USSR in the thirties and came back raving
: about how the USSR was the future of humanity. Red Cross
: delegations went to concentration camps in Germany, and came
: back to report that the prisoners were well treated.
: It's amazing what you can learn on a supervised tour.
I am sorry to point out that this is another example of the influence of the
western media on you. You can have free choices in touring China: through
travel agences (all unofficial), through related organizations that you
cooperating, or if you don't care rush traffic or uncomfortable accommodation,
and want to save your money, simply go by yourselves. China has millions of
foreign tourists each year. No one (including the government) would like to
spare energy to un-rewarding 'supervised tours'. There are many guided
tours with languange interpreters, just like we have in the North America.
But this is by no means a 'supervised tour'. After all, you have choices not
to have such a tour.
: But I have a different question for you. Will you still be
: saying how free China is today, ten years from today's day?
Today or ten years from now?
China is free now, sometimes more free than in the western countries because
there are not as many laws, by-laws and regulations to restrict people on
many triffle things. As for the future, the trend is very promising to me.
However, if you choose to use a microscope to look at its dark side, you can
always find the distastefulness of China. But that is your own problem.
: jon.
liv...@jnx.com
In article <5jb048$l...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
>
> : It's amazing what you can learn on a supervised tour.
>
> I am sorry to point out that this is another example of the
> influence of the western media on you. You can have free
> choices in touring China: through travel agences (all unofficial),
> through related organizations that you cooperating, or if you
> don't care rush traffic or uncomfortable accommodation, and
> want to save your money, simply go by yourselves. China has
> millions of foreign tourists each year. No one (including the
> government) would like to spare energy to un-rewarding
> 'supervised tours'. There are many guided tours with languange
> interpreters, just like we have in the North America. But
> this is by no means a 'supervised tour'. After all, you have
> choices not to have such a tour.
Fascinating. So I can go to one of the public executions
and ask what the person being shot is being shot for?
Amnesty says that there were something like three thousand
executions last year, and the crimes were not always announced.
Are you suggesting that we could have western tourists go and
act as observers at trials in China?
Could the US government send observers, too?
> : But I have a different question for you. Will you still
> be : saying how free China is today, ten years from today's
> day?
>
> Today or ten years from now? China is free now, sometimes more
> free than in the western countries because there are not as
> many laws, by-laws and regulations to restrict people on many
> triffle things.
On the other hand, when we commit a trifling offense in the
west, the result is more likely to be a fine than a bullet in
the back of the head.
A mere detail, I know.
Zhensheng Lou
: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
: In article <5jb048$l...@tribune.usask.ca>,
: Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
: >: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
: >
: > : It's amazing what you can learn on a supervised tour.
: >
: > I am sorry to point out that this is another example of the
: > influence of the western media on you. You can have free
: > choices in touring China: through travel agences (all unofficial),
: > through related organizations that you cooperating, or if you
: > don't care rush traffic or uncomfortable accommodation, and
: > want to save your money, simply go by yourselves. China has
: > millions of foreign tourists each year. No one (including the
: > government) would like to spare energy to un-rewarding
: > 'supervised tours'. There are many guided tours with languange
: > interpreters, just like we have in the North America. But
: > this is by no means a 'supervised tour'. After all, you have
: > choices not to have such a tour.
: Fascinating. So I can go to one of the public executions
: and ask what the person being shot is being shot for?
You can ask as the Chinese can. But You may or may not do anything on the
scene, depending on whether you are invited or not.
I suppose you could have any rights that your own country grants to you.
But when you are in another country, you have to respect their rules or laws,
no matter how different they are from yours. Singapore's physical punishment
on an American fool-around teen a few years ago, was unaccetable to most
Americans, but that was following Singapore's law, not Americans. The public
executions were widely accepted in China for many centuries. It is part of
Chinese justice system. As Chinese never poke their noses into your domestic
affairs, the west should also refrain themselves from being too much minded on
the Chinese system.
: Amnesty says that there were something like three thousand
: executions last year, and the crimes were not always announced.
If the execution number of 3,000 was for Switsland, it really needs to be
watched. However, for China's nearly 1.3 billion people, the proportion is
merely 1/400,000, a rate way lower than many countries that hold the
top-punishment. The crimes were not always announced? Any proofs that the crime
announcement in China is different from any others?
: Are you suggesting that we could have western tourists go and
: act as observers at trials in China?
Completely unnecessarily. The western people are not regarded as natural judges
at trials by China, especially the tourists. Chinese can do these things very
well.
: Could the US government send observers, too?
Maybe, but only being invited, as China can not force the US to accept the
Chinese observers in the US trials.
: > : But I have a different question for you. Will you still
: > be : saying how free China is today, ten years from today's
: > day?
: >
: > Today or ten years from now? China is free now, sometimes more
: > free than in the western countries because there are not as
: > many laws, by-laws and regulations to restrict people on many
: > triffle things.
: On the other hand, when we commit a trifling offense in the
: west, the result is more likely to be a fine than a bullet in
: the back of the head.
Do you think in China, the offense subject to a fine will be punished by
a bullet? Laughter! If so, your number of 3,000 may have to be changed to
300,000,000 or bigger. This statement perfectly reflected the ignorance in
the west about China. Get a brain first before a mouth.
: A mere detail, I know.
liv...@jnx.com
In article <5jbsui$6...@tribune.usask.ca>,
You are trying to change the subject. I am not asking if I
can violate China's laws. I am asking if I can test for
myself your claim that China is free.
For example, in a free country, people are not executed for
expressing their opinion. How can I check that this is not
happening in China?
If people are being executed, and we don't can't even find
out what for, how can we say if a country is free or not?
liv...@jnx.com
In article <5jegb1$j...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>> liv...@jnx.com wrote:
>
>>>> Fascinating. So I can go to one of the public executions
>>>> and ask what the person being shot is being shot for?
>>>
>>> You can ask as the Chinese can. But You may or may not do
>>> anything on the scene, depending on whether you are invited
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> I suppose you could have any rights that your own country
>>> grants to you. But when you are in another country, you have
>>> to respect their rules or laws, no matter how different they
>>> are from yours.
>
>> You are trying to change the subject. I am not asking if I
>> can violate China's laws. I am asking if I can test for
>> myself your claim that China is free.
>
> does not necessarily prove that China is free or not free.
Once again you are trying to fiddle with the question before
answering it, in a highly misleading way.
I didn't say that it *proved* whether China is free or not.
I said that until we can find out how many of the three thousand
plus people executed each year are executed for legitimate
crimes, and how many are executed for speaking out, we simply
do not know.
It's not what I can prove. It's the fact that I cannot test
your claim that China is free at all.
Here are two very simple questions, which demand a simple yes
or no answer, and which I believe you can't twist your way
out of.
"A country where people are executed for opposing the
political sysem, cannot be called free".
Do you agree or not?
"A country where you can't reliably find out what people
were excuted for, is a country you cannot say is free or
not".
Do you agree or not?
Zhensheng Lou
: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
: >> Fascinating. So I can go to one of the public executions
: >> and ask what the person being shot is being shot for?
: >
: > You can ask as the Chinese can. But You may or may not do
: > anything on the scene, depending on whether you are invited
: > or not.
: >
: > I suppose you could have any rights that your own country
: > grants to you. But when you are in another country, you have
: > to respect their rules or laws, no matter how different they
: > are from yours.
: You are trying to change the subject. I am not asking if I
: can violate China's laws. I am asking if I can test for
: myself your claim that China is free.
Whether or not you can go to a trial or an execution in China does not
necessarily prove that China is free or not free. So many countries in the
world are having justice systems as China has, and they may allow or not allow
you to attend an execution. Singling out China is itself a preoccupied mind.
If I said the US or Canada is free, will you want to go to a trial over there.
: For example, in a free country, people are not executed for
: expressing their opinion. How can I check that this is not
: happening in China?
Can you prove that in today's China anyone has been executed simply because
he/she expressed the opinion? At least to my best knowledge, I cannot find
one. If you are really keen on checking out this, take two ways. First, read
the story from both sides, have you heard anything China or the majority of
Chinese are saying? Second, go to China to see it for yourself.
: If people are being executed, and we don't can't even find
: out what for, how can we say if a country is free or not?
There are too many publicised executions in China. You can read from various
sources: newspappers, government anouncements and posts right in the streets.
But why you choose to say, 'we can't find out ...' Have you actually tried?
More likely, you are just repeating what the TV and newspaper said in the west.
From what you stated here, I can be 100% sure that you have not been to
China, at least in recent years. This is the very mistake we are making
in the west: saying sth before learning sth.
: jon.
: -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
--
Jacksen Lou
Jeremiah Wilton
C Malte Lewan wrote:
>
> Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> > Politics are culturally based, not universal.
>
> Wrong, human rights are universal, not culturally based. And they never
> will be.
Should I take your word for it?
> The West meddling in Chinese affairs is to me an extension of the moral
> principle allowing and obligating me to meddle if my nextdoor neighbour
> beats his wife whenever she speaks up
[...snip...]
OK, good analogy. Now another question: Would you meddle in your
neighbor's affairs if he hit a child for misbehaving? Is support or
opposition to this kind of corporal punishment culturally based, or
universal? What about a light spanking on the bottom that is more
humiliating than painful?
I still maintain that politics, including human rights cannot be
universal, because we do not share a universal culture. My defense of
this statement is the above analogy.
Jeremiah Wilton
liv...@jnx.com wrote:
>
> On the other hand, when we commit a trifling offense in the
> west, the result is more likely to be a fine than a bullet in
> the back of the head.
It is ridiculous to assert that you would be executed for a "trifling
offense" in the People's Republic of China. Capital crimes are well
documented in their legal code, and do not include such things as would
be considered misdemeanors in the United States or other Western
countries.
This kind of exaggeration underscores your ignorance of the Chinese
system of laws and the Chinese people in general. On the other hand, a
disproportionate number of minorities are executed in the United States,
even if you adjust for the crime for which an individual is convicted.
Why don't you expend your energy objecting to that, rather than legal
death penalty judgements in China?
liv...@jnx.com
In article <335BA6...@spry.com_NOSPAM>,
Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
>liv...@jnx.com wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, when we commit a trifling offense in the
>> west, the result is more likely to be a fine than a bullet in
>> the back of the head.
>
> It is ridiculous to assert that you would be executed for a
> "trifling offense" in the People's Republic of China. Capital
> crimes are well documented in their legal code, and do not
> include such things as would be considered misdemeanors in
> the United States or other Western countries.
It might be a good idea to read what you are going to reply
to.
I said that we do *not* get a bullet in the back of the head
for trifling offenses in the West. How can I say this?
Because trials are public, the penal code is well known,
prisoners are represented by lawyers, appeals are heard, and
those condemned are not rushed away and shot hurriedly in a
field behind the courtroom before anyone can protest.
You cannot say the same about any of these in China, so we
simply *do* *not* *know* if people are being shot for trivial
offenses. We simply *do* *not* *know* if people who are
allegedly being shot for "real" crimes are actually being
disposed of for political convenience.
And as long as we simply *do* *not* *know*, then claims that
China is free are completely untestable. They remain in the
realm of empty propaganda.
jon.
~
remove this]@worldonline.nl Herman Beun
Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote in article
<335BA1...@spry.com_NOSPAM>...
> C Malte Lewan wrote:
> > The West meddling in Chinese affairs is to me an extension of the moral
> > principle allowing and obligating me to meddle if my nextdoor neighbour
> > beats his wife whenever she speaks up
> [...snip...]
>
> OK, good analogy. Now another question: Would you meddle in your
> neighbor's affairs if he hit a child for misbehaving? Is support or
> opposition to this kind of corporal punishment culturally based, or
> universal? What about a light spanking on the bottom that is more
> humiliating than painful?
And there's the smoke curtain again. What we are talking about is not being
hit or even lightly spanked on the bottom for misbehaving, it is being
killed and tortured for misbehaving. And yes, definitely, if my neighbour
does that to his children I do take action against it.
> I still maintain that politics, including human rights cannot be
> universal, because we do not share a universal culture. My defense of
> this statement is the above analogy.
And what a bad one it is (your version, not Malte's).
--
Herman Beun
http://www.worldonline.nl/~chbeun
e-mail: CHB...@WorldOnLine.NL
remove this]@worldonline.nl Herman Beun
Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote in article
> liv...@jnx.com wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, when we commit a trifling offense in the
> > west, the result is more likely to be a fine than a bullet in
> > the back of the head.
>
> It is ridiculous to assert that you would be executed for a "trifling
> offense" in the People's Republic of China. Capital crimes are well
> documented in their legal code, and do not include such things as would
> be considered misdemeanors in the United States or other Western
> countries.
Don't they? Amnesty International's report on China, April 1996
(http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/china/report/cc5.htm):
"During the first half of 1995, people were executed in China for a wide
range of violent and non-violent crimes. These included: murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, robbery, rape, causing injury,
assault, habitual theft, theft, burglary, kidnapping, trafficking in women
or children, prostitution, pimping, organizing pornography rings,
publishing pornography, hoo- liganism, seriously disrupting public order,
causing explosions, destroying or causing damage to public or private
property, "counter-revolutionary sabotage", arson, poisoning of livestock,
drug-trafficking, killing a tiger, corruption, embezzlement, taking bribes,
fraud, speculation and profiteering, forgery, reselling value-added tax
receipts, tax evasion, stealing or illegally manufacturing weapons,
illegally possessing or selling firearms and ammunition, stealing or
dealing in national treasures or cultural relics, selling counterfeit money
and blackmail. Others were sentenced to death and may have been executed
for gambling, selling fake invoices, causing death through torture, bigamy
and misappropriation of public funds.
In recent years, a growing number of people have been sentenced to death
for non-violent offences such as theft, as well as for drug-trafficking,
and some have been executed for relatively minor offences. In 1994, for
instance, two peasants were executed in Henan province for stealing 36 cows
and small items of agricultural machinery worth US$ 9,300. According to
some sources, a person can be sentenced to death if the "economic loss"
involved is 40,000 yuan (about US$ 5,000) or more."
> This kind of exaggeration underscores your ignorance of the Chinese
> system of laws and the Chinese people in general.
Bluffing and calling people ignorant may be an effective debating technique
in some cases, but not in this newsgroup. What is it, have you been
brainwashed or do you have commercial interests in China?
> On the other hand, a
> disproportionate number of minorities are executed in the United States,
> even if you adjust for the crime for which an individual is convicted.
> Why don't you expend your energy objecting to that, rather than legal
> death penalty judgements in China?
I am against death penalty in general, also in the USA. The difference
between the USA and China that you are trying to muddle away is that
Americans speaking up against death penalty in their country can not be
executed for counter-revolutionary activity.
> China: The future is now.
I wouldn't count on it, unless they get wise and democratise.
C Malte Lewan
Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
> C Malte Lewan wrote:
> > Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
> > > Politics are culturally based, not universal.
> >
> > Wrong, human rights are universal, not culturally based. And they never
> > will be.
>
> Should I take your word for it?
Hey, that was my point! :-) To create that effect to your statement
above. But then, you indirectly acknowledge that I shouldn't take _your_
word for it either, so we both agree that it's a non-starter then. :)
> > The West meddling in Chinese affairs is to me an extension of the moral
> > principle allowing and obligating me to meddle if my nextdoor neighbour
> > beats his wife whenever she speaks up
> [...snip...]
>
> OK, good analogy. Now another question: Would you meddle in your
> neighbor's affairs if he hit a child for misbehaving? Is support or
> opposition to this kind of corporal punishment culturally based, or
> universal? What about a light spanking on the bottom that is more
> humiliating than painful?
I don't know. That depends on what it looks like. I luckily haven't been
in the actual situation. But the fact that there exist grey areas does
not affect the clear ones. They remain. The clear areas is the neighbour
repeatedly hitting his wife or holding her looked up in the closet
(wardrobe) for speaking up to him. That's the situation in which I
clearly will want to meddle.
I see a problem here from defenders of the Chinese government that they
are taking the step in logic from saying that *some* matters are matters
of one group of people's internal occupation (I agree with this) to
saying that therefore *all* matters, no matter which, is one group of
people's internal occupation (which I don't agree with). There is a huge
lot of dealings (among those, in some perspectives, maybe questionable
ones) going on in my neighbour's house that I don't interfer with and
never intend to. That passivity is based on the principle that it's not
my business (if nothing else). Still, I'd act (hopefully...if I get into
that situation) if basic human decency one day would be violated. That
is for example the case when students in China are imprisoned for long
periods of their one and only youth for publicly discussing how they
want their own society to be different.
In response to another poster: if I felt that Sweden had a clear
misconduct in some human right errends, I'd welcome international
pressure on Sweden to change this. As it is, there are only grey areas
as I see it but I wouldn't be upset if for example Finland took a more
active role concerning local autonomy and cultural rights for the 30 000
geograhically concentrated Finnish dialect speakers in north eastern
Sweden. I'm afraid that it could miss it's purpose (due to feelings of
internal national pride) but that's a practical concern that I regret
(and I'm not even sure of), not an ideological one. It's a common world.
Let's help each other make it better. International pressure on clear
injustices in other countries may be one way.
--
Malte Lewan Longa Onivarsiteid, Scania, EO Tengtcen řlle redgijonal!
Zhensheng Lou
: > > Wrong, human rights are universal, not culturally based. And they never
: > > will be.
: >
: > Should I take your word for it?
: Hey, that was my point! :-) To create that effect to your statement
: above. But then, you indirectly acknowledge that I shouldn't take _your_
: word for it either, so we both agree that it's a non-starter then. :)
Human rights are closely related to cultures. For example, people from an
individualism environment may place a personal freedom in priority, while
people from a eastern culture may not feel it over selfish or self-centred.
A friend of mine who is married with a Chinese girl once told me that his
wife repeatedly expressed her distasteful feeling about so called free speakers
on the TV.
: I see a problem here from defenders of the Chinese government that they
I also see a problem here: It is not the government of China that has been
defended; rather, it is the reality and facts that are being defended. The
distortion in the west media is a serious matter now, which is misleading
the public. Such a situation is the result of a cold war mentality. Many
people start to realize the detrimental consequence that might result from
possible confrontation due the misconception. The seven western countries
that dropped off co-sponsor the Danmark motion of pressing China on human
rights reflected the conscieseness of the years' misconception on the issue.
: are taking the step in logic from saying that *some* matters are matters
: of one group of people's internal occupation (I agree with this) to
: saying that therefore *all* matters, no matter which, is one group of
: people's internal occupation (which I don't agree with). There is a huge
: lot of dealings (among those, in some perspectives, maybe questionable
: ones) going on in my neighbour's house that I don't interfer with and
: never intend to. That passivity is based on the principle that it's not
: my business (if nothing else). Still, I'd act (hopefully...if I get into
: that situation) if basic human decency one day would be violated. That
: is for example the case when students in China are imprisoned for long
: periods of their one and only youth for publicly discussing how they
: want their own society to be different.
Students in China are imprisoned? How many are they? Such a sweeping statement
is too much misleading. If a police is put into jail in the US, one would say
'policemen are imprisoned in the US'? In fact, it is majority Chinese students
(many were former demonstrators in TianAnMen Square) who object the western
policy of human rights towards China. This was clearly indicated in the letter
to the US president Clinton, which was signed by thousands Chinese students
in the US and Canada.
: In response to another poster: if I felt that Sweden had a clear
: misconduct in some human right errends, I'd welcome international
: pressure on Sweden to change this. As it is, there are only grey areas
Chinese also welcomed international pressures on the Chinese government during
TianAnMen demonstration. But they fell much annoyed by today's western human
rights pressure, because they found this is targeting the Chinese as a whole,
with a little to do with idealogical or governmental content. The booming
nationalism in China now is a rebounce of the culture suppress by the west
(at least they perceived this way). When the US sent aircraft carrers to Taiwan
, when a Chinese cargo ship was forcefully stopped by the US navy, when the
China's bid for the 2000 Olympic Game was blocked by the western allien
nations, when every bit of Tibetan separatists' effort was strongly supported
by the US and the EU, the Chinese were hurt by undue humiliations. Human
rights are being used as another tool to meddle them. Chinese are, as former
Hongkong governer said, with a world-class proudness. They know how to handle
their own business, need not anyone to act as their saver, no matter in human
rights or the other things, such as the Hongkong transition.
Do you know all these recent changes?
: as I see it but I wouldn't be upset if for example Finland took a more
: active role concerning local autonomy and cultural rights for the 30 000
: geograhically concentrated Finnish dialect speakers in north eastern
: Sweden. I'm afraid that it could miss it's purpose (due to feelings of
: internal national pride) but that's a practical concern that I regret
: (and I'm not even sure of), not an ideological one. It's a common world.
: Let's help each other make it better. International pressure on clear
: injustices in other countries may be one way.
The problem is the people who cannot handle justice themselves at home want
to impose their own social values on other people.
: --
: Malte Lewan Longa Onivarsiteid, Scania, EO Tengtcen řlle redgijonal!
: c...@df.lth.se http://www.df.lth.se/~cml Always think regionally!
--
Jacksen Lou
remove this]@worldonline.nl Herman Beun
Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote in article
> No, indeed. The Danish resolution sought censure of the Chinese
> government without an ounce of understanding of the feelings of the
> Chinese peopleon the subject. If your image of life in China is "locking
> up hundreds of thousands of its citizens in re-education camps for
> disagreeing with the government," you have been watching too many
> Western news broadcasts.
Ah? I quote from Amnesty's website again (their April 1996 newsletter on
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/china/ccfocus.htm)
"Dissent and any activity perceived as a threat to the established
political order are ruthlessly suppressed. Thousands of political
dissidents, human rights defenders and members of religious or ethnic
groups are in jail, many simply for expressing their beliefs. Hundreds of
thousands of people possibly many more are administratively detained, many
in forced labour camps, without ever having been charged with a crime."
> Now it is clear to me that you lack any understanding of Chinese
> politics whatsoever. 6.4.89 was a complicated political event, not a
> simple crushing of a peaceful movement by a unilaterally hardline
> government.
So it being a complicated political event is a _justification_ (instead of
only an _explanation_) for abuse of power ?
> The one thing that the
> government and the people of China find distasteful is a person who runs
> to the foreign media with exaggerated claims of injustice, and
> expressions of admiration for a foreign political culture.
What I find distasteful are your expressions of admiration for those
elements of a foreign political culture that concern torturing, killing and
abuse of power. The Chinese culture has very much it can be proud of, but
if I were Chinese I would feel seriously offended by your blind support of
even the bad elements of it.
> Politics are culturally based, not universal. They are not even
> universal within one country. Insisting on standard terms and
> expectations in political thought throughout the world is the worst kind
> of cultural hegemony.
Smoke curtains again. I am not saying that political systems are universal.
Human rights on the contrary are.
--
Herman Beun
http://www.worldonline.nl/~chbeun
e-mail: CHB...@WorldOnLine.NL
Zhensheng Lou
: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
: I said that we do *not* get a bullet in the back of the head
: for trifling offenses in the West. How can I say this?
Yes, how can you say this?! Will you get a bullet in China for trifling
offences?
: Because trials are public, the penal code is well known,
: prisoners are represented by lawyers, appeals are heard, and
: those condemned are not rushed away and shot hurriedly in a
: field behind the courtroom before anyone can protest.
In China, trials are public (maybe too public somethimes), the penal code is
well written on the paper, prisoners are represented by lawyers, appeals are
heard. A recent example is the trial on a famous former student leader - Wang
Dan. He has a lawyer hired to defend him, according to Chinese lwas. I
personally feel unfair for him, but have to admit that he was sentenced by
normal suit procedures. Maybe the laws need to be changed. However, this does
not credit you for making the above wrong statements.
: You cannot say the same about any of these in China, so we
: simply *do* *not* *know* if people are being shot for trivial
: offenses. We simply *do* *not* *know* if people who are
: allegedly being shot for "real" crimes are actually being
: disposed of for political convenience.
You do not necessarily need to know, as long as the Chinese judgers and
the people need to know are informed. Do you know anything about the sentences
of millions of Americans or Europeans? Why ain't you looking at these more
domestic trials first?
: And as long as we simply *do* *not* *know*, then claims that
: China is free are completely untestable. They remain in the
: realm of empty propaganda.
The claim of 'China is free' is at least backed by in person observations in
China. What to support your descriptions of China's political situation?
Which is more empty?
: jon.
: ~
: -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
--
Jacksen Lou
Zhensheng Lou
: Zhensheng Lou (lou...@duke.usask.ca) wrote:
: Human rights are closely related to cultures. For example, people from an
: individualism environment may place a personal freedom in priority, while
: people from a eastern culture may not feel it over selfish or self-centred.
^^^
Correction: Sorry, without 'not' in the previous post.
Jacksen Lou
remove this]@worldonline.nl Herman Beun
> : liv...@jnx.com wrote:
>
> : I said that we do *not* get a bullet in the back of the head
> : for trifling offenses in the West. How can I say this?
>
> Yes, how can you say this?! Will you get a bullet in China for trifling
> offences?
Yes, for simple misdemeanors like hooliganism, tax evasion. Even for things
that are not even punishable in most western countries (like prostitution,
publishing pornography, gambling or 'counter-revolutionary sabotage').
> In China, trials are public (maybe too public somethimes), the penal
> code is well written on the paper, prisoners are represented by
> lawyers, appeals are heard.
You have read too much propaganda. Maybe this is true for some cases, it is
a fact that large numbers of prisoners in China have never had a trial, let
alone a fair one. Many do not even know what they are accused of. Moreover,
it is very easy to write a penal code that at first sight looks good, but
in reality is so vague that it can easily be misused by authorities. Vaclav
Havel, a former political prisoner but now president of the Chech republic,
wrote interesting things about this, but I suppose other dissidents from
other countries wrote comparable things. Vague and contradictory is exactly
how Amnesty qualifies the Chinese penal code.
Furthermore, even with a perfect penal code you need a judiciary and police
force that can operate independently of political authorities. This is
something China does not have either, as large numbers of arbitrary
detentions and political sentences (at least 2,678 in jail in 1995 is a
number that was acknowledged by the Ministry of Justice) prove.
"Re-education through labour" (about 100,000 people according to official
sources) is a punishment that is even actually imposed by government
committees for 'anti-socialist views' or for crimes that are 'too minor' to
be prosecuted under the Criminal Law.
> : You cannot say the same about any of these in China, so we
> : simply *do* *not* *know* if people are being shot for trivial
> : offenses. We simply *do* *not* *know* if people who are
> : allegedly being shot for "real" crimes are actually being
> : disposed of for political convenience.
>
> You do not necessarily need to know, as long as the Chinese judgers and
> the people need to know are informed.
They aren't, as I made clear. What is your next preverication?
> Do you know anything about the
> sentences of millions of Americans or Europeans? Why ain't you looking
> at these more domestic trials first?
I am. I read about them in the newspapers. Why, there _are_ trials here.
> The claim of 'China is free' is at least backed by in person
> observations in China. What to support your descriptions of
> China's political situation?
Official statistics of the Chinese government?
> Which is more empty?
Yours, definitely.
liv...@jnx.com
In article <5ji0rd$i...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
>
>> I said that we do *not* get a bullet in the back of the head
>> for trifling offenses in the West. How can I say this?
>
> Yes, how can you say this?!
You seem so shocked. Almost as though daring to say it
is worse than the events we are talking about.
> Will you get a bullet in China for trifling offences?
Please Mr Beun's very comprehensive answer to this. The
Amnesty Report would appear to indicate that the answer to
your question is "yes".
The most interesting thing is that the report he quotes, and
which I won't requote here, lists crimes that have very vague
definitions. For example, what does it mean when people are
imprisoned or executed for "hooliganism" or "seriously
disrupting public order"
Such vague offenses may be genuine, or they may be defined
for the conveneince of the authorities, as indeed they often
were under Stalin.
jon.
Zhensheng Lou
: Herman Beun (CHBeun[anti-spam,removethis]@WorldOnLine.NL) wrote:
: > Yes, how can you say this?! Will you get a bullet in China for trifling
: > offences?
: > In China, trials are public (maybe too public somethimes), the penal
: > code is well written on the paper, prisoners are represented by
: > lawyers, appeals are heard.
: You have read too much propaganda. Maybe this is true for some cases, it is
: a fact that large numbers of prisoners in China have never had a trial, let
: alone a fair one. Many do not even know what they are accused of. Moreover,
: it is very easy to write a penal code that at first sight looks good, but
: in reality is so vague that it can easily be misused by authorities. Vaclav
: Havel, a former political prisoner but now president of the Chech republic,
: wrote interesting things about this, but I suppose other dissidents from
: other countries wrote comparable things. Vague and contradictory is exactly
: how Amnesty qualifies the Chinese penal code.
Too much propaganda? If so, I should read more from the western media, because
I lived here in Canada all the time. But my personall experience in China and
my contacts with all my Chinese friends proved that misunderstanding is so
serious in the west that it reaches a level of unspeakable ignorance.
Investigating China solely by reading the media or propaganda outside China is
ridiculus. In addition, your view of China's human rights is about 10 years
old. China has changed so much during this period that even Chinese who stayed
away from China more that 5 years will find themselves strangers, when they
pay a visit to China now. Chinese laws need to be completed or mended, but
don't make a joke that the Amnesty can do the job. They can simply send China
into a desperate situation as the Russians have now. Law ruling has never been
a Chinese tradition in its thousands years' history. You can imagin how
difficult it is for the government and the people to take this road.
Superficial accusation on this will only be less productive and destructive.
People in the west may want to have a China assemble to the today's Russia.
But be careful! When the radical transition happens, people will suffer more
just as in Russia. At such a time, where is your good will in promoting 'human
rights' over there? Communists bouncing back to the Russian political power
struggle is a lesson to learn.
liv...@jnx.com
In article <5jjbrc$c...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>
>: Herman Beun (CHBeun[anti-spam,removethis]@WorldOnLine.NL) wrote:
>
on
>: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/china/ccfocus.htm)
>
> When did you see that the Amnesty said anything good about China
> or other communist nations?
When was the last time you saw Amnesty say anything much good
about *any* nation? Amnesty doesn't exist to say nice things.
It exists to expose abuses, and it exposes them worldwide; not
just in China.
> The organization was founded to meet cold war requirements,
> and is operated by the people in the same line of western
> median reporters.
Rubbish. Amnesty spends most of its time exposing abuses
wherever it can find them, even in the US.
> You would certainly be very preoccupied because you only get
> information about China from there or the media surround you.
Yes? And the reason for that is...?
> Why don't you take even a bit chance to listen to what Chinese
> people and the government are saying?
Because what they say that we can check is so often total lies.
Take Tibet, for example.
So imagine how we feel about what they say that we cannot check.
> This will give you more unbiased source for a fair judgement.
You mean like listening to what the USSR's people and Government
said on the subject of rights in the old USSR, perhaps?
Zhensheng Lou
: Herman Beun (CHBeun[anti-spam,removethis]@WorldOnLine.NL) wrote:
: Ah? I quote from Amnesty's website again (their April 1996 newsletter on
: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/china/ccfocus.htm)
When did you see that the Amnesty said anything good about China or other
communist nations? The organization was founded to meet cold war requirements,
and is operated by the people in the same line of western median reporters.
You would certainly be very preoccupied because you only get information about
China from there or the media surround you. Why don't you take even a bit
chance to listen to what Chinese people and the government are saying? This
Dorian Browne
Is there anything good to say about totalitarian communist nations?
How is the Chinese government an unbiased source on the way it runs the
country? Who was elected to speak for the Chinese people by the Chinese
people in open free elections such that we can judge for ourselves how
the population at large views its lot in life? Is there an independent
free press in China to which we can turn to for information that dares
to criticise the goverment, that exposes the abuses or corruption of
those in power; or is there no need for such agents of the bourgeois
capitalist foreign imperialists who are just out to keep China down?
As for Amnesty International, for being an agent of the West during the
cold war, it was equally critical of many of the West's more unsavoury
allies in the fight against communism. It has often taken the US to
task over its application of the death penalty. So if what you say is
true, it would seem to be biting the hand that feeds it.
On a more personal note, how many your own individual freedoms and
rights would you be prepared to sacrifice for the collective good? And
would you be prepared to leave that definition of "collective good" to
people for whom you never had a chance to vote against? What are these
Asian values that are often mentioned by Asian leaders that seem to
negate the need for individal rights (at least for others)?
I am genuinely interested in your informed response.
Dorian Browne
Zhensheng Lou
: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
: When was the last time you saw Amnesty say anything much good
: about *any* nation? Amnesty doesn't exist to say nice things.
: It exists to expose abuses, and it exposes them worldwide; not
: just in China.
I agree that the AI does not only expose the problems in China. Otherwise,
it should be called 'Amnesty China'. But its conducts that follows so closely
to the western political waves may give you an impression that it is not a
agency that has no bias. By the way, how many people in this organization are
the representives for the nations outside the western sphere? How much do they
know that human rights are interconnected to the culture and the history, and
cannot be treated as an universal issue.
: > The organization was founded to meet cold war requirements,
: > and is operated by the people in the same line of western
: > median reporters.
: Rubbish. Amnesty spends most of its time exposing abuses
: wherever it can find them, even in the US.
"EVEN IN THE U.S.". What do you mean 'even'? Is that country something special
to the AI? You can keep your opinion about the AI. But you simply cannot
exercise your 'democratic freedom' by labelling others' viewpoint as 'rubbish'.
Carefully examining this, you will find that what is deeply rooted in you
EVEN when you are so keen on letting someone to have human rights or freedom
or democracy.
: > You would certainly be very preoccupied because you only get
: > information about China from there or the media surround you.
: Yes? And the reason for that is...?
: > Why don't you take even a bit chance to listen to what Chinese
: > people and the government are saying?
: Because what they say that we can check is so often total lies.
: Take Tibet, for example.
Whose say is often total lies? Both Chinese people and the government. Did
you forget to distinguish them, or did you feel they were the same to you?
There are lies produced by Chinese government. But aren't there lies by
the other governments including the US and the EU governments? People are lying
overall the world in almost equal chances, but they are telling the truth, too.
To be fair to all the people or governments, a guy who wants the true story
would not cover his eyes to one side, while widely open to the other.
What do you mean 'take Tibet'? Want to repeat another western media propaganda?
I recently looked closely at the Tibet issue, and will be happy to share with
you some statistical figures and facts that you may NEVER get from the media
here. But I have to warn you that you may need a courage to combat what you
were told before, because these data are completely different from the stories
we were presented here in the west.
: So imagine how we feel about what they say that we cannot check.
: > This will give you more unbiased source for a fair judgement.
: You mean like listening to what the USSR's people and Government
: said on the subject of rights in the old USSR, perhaps?
Listen. China in esence is no longer a tightly communist controlled country
like the former USSR. The government has an progmatic and objective statements
frequently. I read some of them, and really cannot deny the convincing
statistics they give you. For example, the number of TianAnMen casualties
given by the Chinese government was several hundreds, meanwhile it was
estimated thousands ot ten thousands almost everywhere in the west during 1989.
It seems that after a few years, the media here started realizing the
exageration. Now most reports or China-comments went back to agree the number
that the Chinese government gave.
After all, even you are very much pre-occupied, hearing something from them
, especially the Chinese people, should not jeopardise your judgement for
the truth. If you choose to ignore the voice different from yours, your voice
will more likely to be ignored, too. Two dogs barking in their own fenced-yards
cannot make a good communication!
: jon.
: -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
--
Jacksen Lou
liv...@jnx.com
In article <335E5F...@spry.com_NOSPAM>,>> Because trials are public, the penal code is well known,
>> prisoners are represented by lawyers, appeals are heard, and
>> those condemned are not rushed away and shot hurriedly in a
>> field behind the courtroom before anyone can protest.
>>
>> simply *do* *not* *know* if people are being shot for trivial
>> offenses. We simply *do* *not* *know* if people who are
>> allegedly being shot for "real" crimes are actually being
>> disposed of for political convenience.
>
You seem to be remarably well armoured against simple English,
even when it's spelled out for you.
I am talking about *what* *we* *do* *not* *know*.
> I am curious what your primary source of information is.
For what? For what we *don't* know?
> Western media, HR Watch Asia, and AI all
> obtain their information on China from sketchy, unverified or
> nonexistant sources.
And why is that?
I'm deleting your attempt to get me to defend Harry Wu.
Nothing I have said so far depends on his credibility in the
slightest, so if you have a beef with him, take it up with
him.
liv...@jnx.com
In article <5jkctj$s...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
>
>: When was the last time you saw Amnesty say anything much good
>: about *any* nation? Amnesty doesn't exist to say nice things.
>: It exists to expose abuses, and it exposes them worldwide; not
>: just in China.
>
> I agree that the AI does not only expose the problems in China.
> Otherwise, it should be called 'Amnesty China'. But its conducts
> that follows so closely to the western political waves may give
> you an impression that it is not a agency that has no bias.
You are still talking complete nonsense. Amnesty regularly
releases reports that embarrass western governments and their
allies. It does *not* follow a western agenda. It regularly
enrages western governments.
You have a totally bogus idea about what's going on here. At
the moment, Amnesty is exposing abuses in China, and China
has disputes with the west, so you conclude Amnesty is a tool
of the west: "follows so closely to the western political waves".
That has no logical merit at all. Using your logic, a western
government that had a dispute with China and had a bad report from
Amnesty would be able to conclude Amnesty is a tool of China.
Would you accept that as a valid logical conclusion?
If Amnesty produces reports which are negative both about
China and about the West, you ought to conclude that it is
*not* showing any gross systematic bias - noone can guarantee
that there is no bias in the detail of a particular report -
not that it is biased in a general way.
You're on a loser here. There are simply too many people
around who have seen Amnesty reports criticising their own
governments for them to buy the idea of Amnesty as a tool of
the west. It just makes you look a bit desperate to suggest
such a thing.
Jeremiah Wilton
liv...@jnx.com wrote:
>
> Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> >liv...@jnx.com wrote:
> >>
> >> west, the result is more likely to be a fine than a bullet in
> >> the back of the head.
> >
> > It is ridiculous to assert that you would be executed for a
> > "trifling offense" in the People's Republic of China. Capital
> > crimes are well documented in their legal code, and do not
> > include such things as would be considered misdemeanors in
> > the United States or other Western countries.
>
> to.
>
> for trifling offenses in the West.
Ok, I see you are rude, too. I am puzzled by this reaction, since my
posting seems to take into account the meaning that you intended.
> Because trials are public, the penal code is well known,
> prisoners are represented by lawyers, appeals are heard, and
> those condemned are not rushed away and shot hurriedly in a
> field behind the courtroom before anyone can protest.
>
> You cannot say the same about any of these in China, so we
> simply *do* *not* *know* if people are being shot for trivial
> offenses. We simply *do* *not* *know* if people who are
> allegedly being shot for "real" crimes are actually being
> disposed of for political convenience.
You have not checked on this, have you? I am curious what your primary
source of information is. Western media, HR Watch Asia, and AI all
obtain their information on China from sketchy, unverified or
nonexistant sources. A good example of this is the Harry Wu Chinese
prisoner organ harvesting film which was widely played by the media, and
roundly condemned by the HR organizations, until a doctor saw it and
noted that the video was of a heart bypass surgery. Wu's Laogai Research
Foundation then admitted that, "the operating room video was used as a
background shot," and was not meant to portray any actual organ
transplantation.
> And as long as we simply *do* *not* *know*, then claims that
> China is free are completely untestable. They remain in the
> realm of empty propaganda.
As long as you keep your eyes closed to the reality of daily life in
China, you will continue to *not* *know*. We all can agree that there
are problems in China as well as in many other more developed countries,
such as the US. To pick out China as a target for this meaningless
"free" vs. "not free" comparison, when the US government imprisons and
executes minorities at a disproportionate rate to similarly convicted
whites, is simply unfair.
--
Jeremiah Wilton Web page: http://feng.spry.com:2150/jw/index
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Wilton
Herman Beun wrote:
>
> Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> > It is ridiculous to assert that you would be executed for a "trifling
> > offense" in the People's Republic of China. Capital crimes are well
> > documented in their legal code, and do not include such things as would
> > be considered misdemeanors in the United States or other Western
> > countries.
>
>
> range of violent and non-violent crimes. These included: murder, attempted
> murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, robbery, rape, causing injury,
> assault, habitual theft, theft, burglary, kidnapping, trafficking in women
> or children, prostitution, pimping, organizing pornography rings,
> publishing pornography, hoo- liganism, seriously disrupting public order,
> causing explosions, destroying or causing damage to public or private
> property, "counter-revolutionary sabotage", arson, poisoning of livestock,
> drug-trafficking, killing a tiger, corruption, embezzlement, taking bribes,
> fraud, speculation and profiteering, forgery, reselling value-added tax
> receipts, tax evasion, stealing or illegally manufacturing weapons,
> illegally possessing or selling firearms and ammunition, stealing or
> dealing in national treasures or cultural relics, selling counterfeit money
> and blackmail. Others were sentenced to death and may have been executed
> for gambling, selling fake invoices, causing death through torture, bigamy
> and misappropriation of public funds.
Which of these would be considered a misdemeanor in a Western country?
They are all felonies under their equivalent statutes in US and most
European laws.
> > This kind of exaggeration underscores your ignorance of the Chinese
> > system of laws and the Chinese people in general.
>
> Bluffing and calling people ignorant may be an effective debating technique
> in some cases, but not in this newsgroup. What is it, have you been
> brainwashed or do you have commercial interests in China?
Those who cannot conceive of others holding a legitimate opinion other
than their own commonly ask this question. But personal probing on your
part would find that I hold no significant interests in China's economy,
other than a moral interest that China be treated as they deserve to be
by the former-colonialist Western nations.
> > a disproportionate number of minorities are executed in the United States,
> > even if you adjust for the crime for which an individual is convicted.
> > Why don't you expend your energy objecting to that, rather than legal
> > death penalty judgements in China?
>
> I am against death penalty in general, also in the USA. The difference
> between the USA and China that you are trying to muddle away is that
> Americans speaking up against death penalty in their country can not be
> executed for counter-revolutionary activity.
But it is not the legitimacy of the death penalty, but its unequal
application is a "democratic" country that is objectionable in this
debate. The same point could be made with regard to emprisonmant.
My personal first-hand experience from being in China is that Chinese
people can and do speak up socially and publicly about a variety of
issues to which some in the Chinese government might object. They do
this without imprisonment, harrassment, or other problems. Opinions
critical of the government are even published in state-owned news
media. Even within the government, a wide range of opinions, reflecting
the opinions of the general population, contend and compete for
dominance. So I am not trying to muddle anything away. Rather I am
directly contradicting your assertion that were I Chinese I could be
shot or imprisoned for speaking my mind.
> > China: The future is now.
>
> I wouldn't count on it, unless they get wise and democratise.
Additional democratization beyond what already exists in China is
underway, with regional elections being contended by party and non-party
candidates.
And you can definitely count on China's future. China is already an
economic powerhouse pulling out of underdevelopment to contend with the
likes of Japan and the United States in the international market. All
of this advancement has been accomplished since 1978! Why would your
(Euro-American) brand of democracy be necessary for the logical
continuation of the process that is already underway? China has a
history of retaining governments that are able to feed the people, and
provide them with life neccessities.
China will become a great nation with or without your support.
Jeremiah Wilton
Herman Beun wrote:
>
> Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
>
> > > The West meddling in Chinese affairs is to me an extension of the moral
> > > principle allowing and obligating me to meddle if my nextdoor neighbour
> > > beats his wife whenever she speaks up
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > OK, good analogy. Now another question: Would you meddle in your
> > neighbor's affairs if he hit a child for misbehaving? Is support or
> > opposition to this kind of corporal punishment culturally based, or
> > universal? What about a light spanking on the bottom that is more
> > humiliating than painful?
>
> hit or even lightly spanked on the bottom for misbehaving, it is being
> killed and tortured for misbehaving. And yes, definitely, if my neighbour
> does that to his children I do take action against it.
OK, but you didn't answer the question.
It is not a smoke curtain, but an attempt to get a point across (perhaps
subtlety is not an effective method in this forum). The question is,
where do you draw the line in physical punishment between acceptible and
unacceptime, and what moral authority makes you feel comfortable with
that line? Can you be sure that your convictions on this subject are
not culturally based?
Jeremiah Wilton
Herman Beun wrote:
>
> Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote in article
> <33566F...@spry.com_NOSPAM>...
>
> > No, indeed. The Danish resolution sought censure of the Chinese
> > government without an ounce of understanding of the feelings of the
> > Chinese peopleon the subject. If your image of life in China is "locking
> > up hundreds of thousands of its citizens in re-education camps for
> > disagreeing with the government," you have been watching too many
> > Western news broadcasts.
>
> http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/china/ccfocus.htm)
>
> political order are ruthlessly suppressed. Thousands of political
> dissidents, human rights defenders and members of religious or ethnic
> groups are in jail, many simply for expressing their beliefs. Hundreds of
> thousands of people possibly many more are administratively detained, many
> in forced labour camps, without ever having been charged with a crime."
Amnesty seems to *never ever* cite a source. They just talk like they
are the global authority, as though everyone should take their word for
it.
> > 6.4.89 was a complicated political event, not a
> > simple crushing of a peaceful movement by a unilaterally hardline
> > government.
>
> So it being a complicated political event is a _justification_ (instead of
> only an _explanation_) for abuse of power ?
No, you are right. It should be taken as an explanation, not a
justification. 6.4 was a tragedy, but many parties are to blame for this
tragedy. They include senior government hardliners such as Li Peng and
stalwart student leaders such as Chai Ling. On the other hand, many
people tried to prevent things from ending the way they did. These
people include former Party Secretary Zhao Ziyang, and popular
Taiwan-born singer and prominent 6.4 demonstrator Hou Dejian.
> What I find distasteful are your expressions of admiration for those
> elements of a foreign political culture that concern torturing, killing and
> abuse of power.
You keep trying to make it personal. I do *not* have admiration for
"torturing, killing and abuse of power." Rather, I am trying to make
legitimate points here, and you just keep coming back and calling me (in
as many words) a lover of murderers.
> > Politics are culturally based, not universal. They are not even
> > universal within one country. Insisting on standard terms and
> > expectations in political thought throughout the world is the worst kind
> > of cultural hegemony.
>
> Smoke curtains again. I am not saying that political systems are universal.
> Human rights on the contrary are.
Inability to consider another's opinion again. What's the difference
between unequal application of a Western standard of human rights and
Western political imperialism? Human rights seem to be a political
issue, after all.
jon ivar skullerud
Zhensheng Lou wrote:
>
> : Herman Beun (CHBeun[anti-spam,removethis]@WorldOnLine.NL) wrote:
>
> : http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/china/ccfocus.htm)
>
> or other communist nations?
When the human rights situation in a country improves, AI will
note that in their report on that country. Regardless of the
official ideology of that country. (Leaving aside for the moment
whether anyone in their right mind would call today's China a
communist country.)
> The organization was founded to meet cold war requirements,
> and is operated by the people in the same line of western median
> reporters.
What a load of tripe. If you believe this, it only goes to show
you know *nothing* -- I repeat -- NOTHING -- about Amnesty
International. They have consistently criticised human rights
abuses in all countries. There has never been any bias towards
any side in the old cold war. They have been just as harsh on
Turkey, Chile, Zaire, Guatemala, El Salvador as they have been on
China, Romania, Angola, Ethiopia, Soviet Union. Their long-running
campaign against the death penalty focuses on USA, China, Iran and
Nigeria. Is there any bias there?
As a consequence of their impartiality, they have been called a
communist front organisation by rightwing (fascist) governments and
a US-led cold war front organisation by people like you.
--
______ _________________________________________________
/ | jon ivar skullerud |
| jon | jsku...@physix.adelaide.edu.au |
\______ | Correct the spelling of physix to reply |
\ | http://www.physix.adelaide.edu.au/~jskuller/ |
ivar | | http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/~jonivar/ |
_______/ |_________________________________________________|
Zhensheng Lou
: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
: In article <5jkctj$s...@tribune.usask.ca>,
: > I agree that the AI does not only expose the problems in China.
: > Otherwise, it should be called 'Amnesty China'. But its conducts
: > that follows so closely to the western political waves may give
: > you an impression that it is not a agency that has no bias.
: You are still talking complete nonsense. Amnesty regularly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please stop using such unproved words. You may want to state the reasons or
facts ot your opinions regarding the talked topic, but not to get it too
personal. This is an old fasion in debating.
: releases reports that embarrass western governments and their
: allies. It does *not* follow a western agenda. It regularly
: enrages western governments.
: You have a totally bogus idea about what's going on here. At
: the moment, Amnesty is exposing abuses in China, and China
: has disputes with the west, so you conclude Amnesty is a tool
: of the west: "follows so closely to the western political waves".
: That has no logical merit at all. Using your logic, a western
: government that had a dispute with China and had a bad report from
: Amnesty would be able to conclude Amnesty is a tool of China.
: Would you accept that as a valid logical conclusion?
Did I make such a logic? No. It was you who worked so hard to make it and
packed up with my name tag. Thank you for your effort, but take it for
yourself with your own name.
My point is: the AI follows the western political stances in general, whether
or not there is a conflict between China and the west.
: If Amnesty produces reports which are negative both about
: China and about the West, you ought to conclude that it is
: *not* showing any gross systematic bias - noone can guarantee
: that there is no bias in the detail of a particular report -
: not that it is biased in a general way.
But the statistics showed that their reports are overhelmingly criticizing
the developing countries. The criticism towards the west is only a minor
portion. Are you going further to explain that the western countries are indeed
having less rights problems, or that people in this world are simply not equal
in their desire or achievement for the human rights due to geographic location?
: You're on a loser here. There are simply too many people
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are even more people, especially in the third world, who dislike the AI,
because they feel its long nose would be more likely sneaking into their pants
than into their hosts' pants. Some people vividly explained that the AI stood
for 'Artificial Insemination', which frequently tries to inject the western
social values into other different societies or cultures. You don't like to
hear this, do you? But don't cover your eyes to it, simply because your dream
is not finished.
: around who have seen Amnesty reports criticising their own
: governments for them to buy the idea of Amnesty as a tool of
: the west. It just makes you look a bit desperate to suggest
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: such a thing.
Oh, boy. You must be a young boy because you have a higher motive to release
your emotion.
: jon.
: -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
--
Jacksen Lou
remove this]@worldonline.nl Herman Beun
Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote in article
> > "During the first half of 1995, people were executed in
> > China for a wide range of violent and non-violent crimes.
> > These included: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter,
> > armed robbery, robbery, rape, causing injury, assault,
> > habitual theft, theft, burglary, kidnapping, trafficking
> > in women or children, prostitution, pimping, organizing
> > pornography rings, publishing pornography, hooliganism,
> > seriously disrupting public order, causing explosions,
> > destroying or causing damage to public or private property,
> > livestock, drug-trafficking, killing a tiger, corruption,
> > embezzlement, taking bribes, fraud, speculation and profiteering,
> > forgery, reselling value-added tax receipts, tax evasion,
> > stealing or illegally manufacturing weapons, illegally possessing
> > or selling firearms and ammunition, stealing or dealing in
> > national treasures or cultural relics, selling counterfeit money
> > and blackmail. Others were sentenced to death and may have been
> > executed for gambling, selling fake invoices, causing death
> > through torture, bigamy and misappropriation of public funds.
>
> Which of these would be considered a misdemeanor in a Western country?
> They are all felonies under their equivalent statutes in US and most
> European laws.
_All_?? Well, I am not familiar with the exact distinction between
misdemeanour and felony in English-speaking countries (Dutch penal law
AFAIUI doesn't make it), but AFAIK in order to get the death penalty in the
USA you have to have committed at least a violent crime (and even then, as
I said, I am against death penalty in general). And are theft, burglary,
prostitution, publishing pornography, tax evasion and gambling considered
feloneys in any civilised country? Anyway, I'd say that punishing them by
death is way over the top. Again, you try to divert the discussion to the
distinction between felonies and misdemeanour.
And, as Jon Livesey pointed out, these offenses or crimes or whatever you
call them are so extremely _vague_. What is hooliganism, or
counter-revolutionary sabotage for instance? Anything that displeases the
Chinese government should of course be the answer. How many people hasn't
Stalin (have) killed under this flag?
> Those who cannot conceive of others holding a legitimate opinion other
> than their own commonly ask this question. But personal probing on your
> part would find that I hold no significant interests in China's economy,
> other than a moral interest that China be treated as they deserve to be
> by the former-colonialist Western nations.
Don't worry, it is. Has any human rights resolution against China _ever_
been passed in the UN? Have you forgotten already that it were small
countries (Denmark, the Netherlands) that proposed these western
colonialist resolutions and are now taking the full blow of China's heroic
resistance, whilst the bigger ones (the four Airbus-countries, Japan,
Australia) chickened out?
> > I am against death penalty in general, also in the USA. The difference
> > between the USA and China that you are trying to muddle away is that
> > Americans speaking up against death penalty in their country can not be
> > executed for counter-revolutionary activity.
>
> But it is not the legitimacy of the death penalty, but its unequal
> application is a "democratic" country that is objectionable in this
> debate. The same point could be made with regard to emprisonmant.
Again, this is not the issue here. I am critical of the application of the
death penalty in general, and of the way death penalty and other
punishments are applied in certain western countries as well. Are you
denying that the human rights situation in China is much, much worse than
in any western country?
> My personal first-hand experience from being in China is that Chinese
> people can and do speak up socially and publicly about a variety of
> issues to which some in the Chinese government might object. They do
> this without imprisonment, harrassment, or other problems. Opinions
> critical of the government are even published in state-owned news
> media.
Critical to what extent? Has anyone proposed freedom of speech already,
freedom of party and union formation and the release of political prisoners
in official media yet, or am I asking too much?
> Even within the government, a wide range of opinions, reflecting
> the opinions of the general population, contend and compete for
> dominance. So I am not trying to muddle anything away.
I just succeeded in suppressing a cynical remark with the number 100.000 in
it.
> Rather I am
> directly contradicting your assertion that were I Chinese I could be
> shot or imprisoned for speaking my mind.
_You_ probably wouldn't be, but are you denying that the critical remarks
about the Chinese system I have been making in this newsgroup would have
remained impunished if I had made them as a Chinese in China?
remove this]@worldonline.nl Herman Beun
Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote in article
> Amnesty seems to *never ever* cite a source. They just talk like they
> are the global authority, as though everyone should take their word for
> it.
You never ever seem to read a source. If you had (the Amnesty report I
mentioned) you would have noticed the references in their footnote list
(http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/china/report/ccfoot.htm).
> > > 6.4.89 was a complicated political event, not a
> > > simple crushing of a peaceful movement by a unilaterally hardline
> > > government.
> >
> > So it being a complicated political event is a _justification_
> > (instead of only an _explanation_) for abuse of power ?
>
> No, you are right. It should be taken as an explanation, not a
> justification. 6.4 was a tragedy, but many parties are to blame for this
> tragedy. They include senior government hardliners such as Li Peng and
> stalwart student leaders such as Chai Ling. On the other hand, many
> people tried to prevent things from ending the way they did. These
> people include former Party Secretary Zhao Ziyang, and popular
> Taiwan-born singer and prominent 6.4 demonstrator Hou Dejian.
Now we're getting somewhere (no sarcasm intended), but I still do not agree
entirely with your line of reasoning. The first and foremost responsible
party for the killings at the Tien-an-menh square is the Chinese government
(or whoever decided to sent in the army). _Not_ 'stalwart' student leaders,
even if they knew what risk they were taking.
> You keep trying to make it personal. I do *not* have admiration for
> "torturing, killing and abuse of power." Rather, I am trying to make
> legitimate points here, and you just keep coming back and calling me (in
> as many words) a lover of murderers.
I am sorry, but you are the one putting (what you consider) cultural values
above the respectation of human rights. If that is not admiring murder it
is at least justifying it. The difference is very small.
> > Smoke curtains again. I am not saying that political systems are
> > universal. Human rights on the contrary are.
>
> Inability to consider another's opinion again. What's the difference
> between unequal application of a Western standard of human rights and
> Western political imperialism? Human rights seem to be a political
> issue, after all.
I am denying that such a thing as a 'Western standard of human rights'
exists, and I am denying as well that I apply the universal standard of
human rights in an unequal way. Show me that I did. Maybe human rights
_are_ a political issue, yes, although it is not me, or AI, or the Danish
UN resolution that made it one, but the Chinese leadership by ignoring them
for political purposes.
remove this]@worldonline.nl Herman Beun
Jeremiah Wilton <jere...@spry.com_NOSPAM> wrote in article
> > > OK, good analogy. Now another question: Would you meddle in your
> > > neighbor's affairs if he hit a child for misbehaving? Is support or
> > > opposition to this kind of corporal punishment culturally based, or
> > > universal? What about a light spanking on the bottom that is more
> > > humiliating than painful?
> >
> > And there's the smoke curtain again. What we are talking about is
> > not being hit or even lightly spanked on the bottom for misbehaving,
> > it is being killed and tortured for misbehaving. And yes, definitely,
> > if my neighbour does that to his children I do take action against
> > it.
>
> OK, but you didn't answer the question.
I didn't, because your question is irrelevant to the issue we're
discussing. We are not talking about China lightly spanking its citizens,
we're talking about China killing and torturing its citizens. That's why I
called it a smoke curtain (diversionary manoeuvre would have been a better
term maybe).
> It is not a smoke curtain, but an attempt to get a point across (perhaps
> subtlety is not an effective method in this forum).
Not in this case, as we're discussing rather unsubtle neck shots here.
> The question is,
> where do you draw the line in physical punishment between acceptible and
> unacceptime, and what moral authority makes you feel comfortable with
> that line? Can you be sure that your convictions on this subject are
> not culturally based?
No. As I said this issue is completely irrelevant w.r.t. a discussion about
human rights in China, as we're _not_ in a grey zone here.
liv...@jnx.com
In article <5jnltc$n...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Zhensheng Lou <lou...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
>: In article <5jkctj$s...@tribune.usask.ca>,
>
>: allies. It does *not* follow a western agenda. It regularly
>: enrages western governments.
>
>: You have a totally bogus idea about what's going on here. At
>: the moment, Amnesty is exposing abuses in China, and China
>: has disputes with the west, so you conclude Amnesty is a tool
>: of the west: "follows so closely to the western political waves".
>
>: That has no logical merit at all. Using your logic, a western
>: government that had a dispute with China and had a bad report from
>: Amnesty would be able to conclude Amnesty is a tool of China.
>: Would you accept that as a valid logical conclusion?
>
> Did I make such a logic? No. It was you who worked so hard to
> make it and packed up with my name tag.
If this is not your argument, what is? What logic lies behind
your claim that Amnesty is following a western political line,
when it routinely exposes abuses in western countries?
>: If Amnesty produces reports which are negative both about
>: China and about the West, you ought to conclude that it is
>: *not* showing any gross systematic bias - noone can guarantee
>: that there is no bias in the detail of a particular report -
>: not that it is biased in a general way.
>
> But the statistics showed that their reports are overhelmingly
> criticizing the developing countries. The criticism towards the
> west is only a minor portion. Are you going further to explain
> that the western countries are indeed having less rights problems,
> or that people in this world are simply not equal in their desire
> or achievement for the human rights due to geographic location?
Well, let's think. People executed in western Europe - zero.
People executed in China - three thousand per year.
Street Children killed by Brazilian police death squads -
hundreds (thousands?) Street Children killed by American police
death squads - how many?
I think that if you look just a little closer at your statistics
you will see equal abuses equally condemned. I don't see why
you would expect mathematically equal numbers of reports. Is
there a reason?
Dorian Browne
> : > Otherwise, it should be called 'Amnesty China'. But its conducts
> : > that follows so closely to the western political waves may give
> : > you an impression that it is not a agency that has no bias.
>
> : You are still talking complete nonsense. Amnesty regularly
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Please stop using such unproved words. You may want to state the reasons or
> facts ot your opinions regarding the talked topic, but not to get it too
> personal. This is an old fasion in debating.
>
> : allies. It does *not* follow a western agenda. It regularly
> : enrages western governments.
>
> : You have a totally bogus idea about what's going on here. At
> : the moment, Amnesty is exposing abuses in China, and China
> : has disputes with the west, so you conclude Amnesty is a tool
> : of the west: "follows so closely to the western political waves".
>
> : That has no logical merit at all. Using your logic, a western
> : government that had a dispute with China and had a bad report from
> : Amnesty would be able to conclude Amnesty is a tool of China.
> : Would you accept that as a valid logical conclusion?
>
> Did I make such a logic? No. It was you who worked so hard to make it and
> yourself with your own name.
>
> My point is: the AI follows the western political stances in general, whether
> or not there is a conflict between China and the west.
>
> : China and about the West, you ought to conclude that it is
> : *not* showing any gross systematic bias - noone can guarantee
> : that there is no bias in the detail of a particular report -
> : not that it is biased in a general way.
>
> But the statistics showed that their reports are overhelmingly criticizing
> the developing countries. The criticism towards the west is only a minor
> portion. Are you going further to explain that the western countries are indeed
> having less rights problems, or that people in this world are simply not equal
> in their desire or achievement for the human rights due to geographic location?
Might it not be that there could generally be less cause for criticism
in nations where governments are answerable to the people through the
ballot box, where there is relative transparency in the decision-making
process and where a dissenting press is permited to expose abuses of
power without fear of retribution? Or does that betray cultural bias?
>
> : You're on a loser here. There are simply too many people
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> There are even more people, especially in the third world, who dislike the AI,
> because they feel its long nose would be more likely sneaking into their pants
> than into their hosts' pants. Some people vividly explained that the AI stood
> for 'Artificial Insemination', which frequently tries to inject the western
> social values into other different societies or cultures. You don't like to
> hear this, do you? But don't cover your eyes to it, simply because your dream
> is not finished.
What are the western social values that AI tries to inject to these
other different societies that are resented by the third world? What,
so we can find out what common ground there is between us, do you accept
to be inalienable human rights? In what way do you feel AI deviates
from our understanding of these?
>
> : around who have seen Amnesty reports criticising their own
> : governments for them to buy the idea of Amnesty as a tool of
> : the west. It just makes you look a bit desperate to suggest
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : such a thing.
>
> Oh, boy. You must be a young boy because you have a higher motive to release
> your emotion.
>
> : jon.
>
> : -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> : http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
> --
> Jacksen Lou
Finally, as you reject AI's criticisms of China as so much uninformed
western propaganda, what, if anything, do you feel could be construed as
justifiable criticism of China's social system? Is there room for
improvement? What is your dream for China? Should I emigrate there?
As always, looking with both eyes uncovered for your thought provoking
comments,
- Dorian Browne
Zhensheng Lou
: Dorian Browne (dcbr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Might it not be that there could generally be less cause for criticism
: in nations where governments are answerable to the people through the
: ballot box, where there is relative transparency in the decision-making
: process and where a dissenting press is permited to expose abuses of
: power without fear of retribution? Or does that betray cultural bias?
: What are the western social values that AI tries to inject to these
: other different societies that are resented by the third world? What,
: so we can find out what common ground there is between us, do you accept
: to be inalienable human rights? In what way do you feel AI deviates
: from our understanding of these?
You may have noticed that AI echoed what the western political noise about
China almost in every occassions. Human rights in China was ever feriously
criticized by AI at exactly the same time the western alia took an uniformed
action. As for the third world, didn't you even notice that the west's failure
in the UN to condemn China was because the third world supported China's 'no
motion' resolution? Didn't you see the huge gap between the developing
countries and the west? There has rarely been a case that a third world
country turned their HR sword to any western country; but there are too often
that this or that third world country was criticised, sanctioned, intervened
or invaded by certain west countries, for the allerged rights abuses. At least
to many observers, AI indeed tried every bit of its gut to co-operate such
arogances. Some people in the west simply have a deeply rooted old colonist
mentality. They naturally regard themselves as a saver for the other people.
They are so easily forgetting a basic international law that any internal
issues should be handled by the people in that country. Who gave these people
such a long nose? When do they think the proper time to do such an unwanted
bully? Are we still in an old ruthless black slavery time, or do these people
think that as long as using a more 'civilized' human rights weapon they can
still do whatever done in the history by 'fire and iron'?
People in the third world are much more alert ever than before to the
moral-less aggresors now. It is time for those dreamers to wake up the old
dream. Regreting what was done wrong, and looking forward to a new human
relationship is the only choice for a world harmony.
: Finally, as you reject AI's criticisms of China as so much uninformed
: western propaganda, what, if anything, do you feel could be construed as
: justifiable criticism of China's social system? Is there room for
: improvement? What is your dream for China? Should I emigrate there?
Sorry. This is very single minded saying. I would equally object all your
questioning even you replace China with the US or Canada in your questions,
because they are seducing people's attention to 'China problem'.
But I am willing to tell my China dream: This great nation and its people
should be respected as an equal member in our earth village; the humiliation
she had suffered for centuries should not be continuing, no matter in what
formats. The best way is for China to give a full blow on those long nose,
instead of bearing, because this is the only way the aggressors learn things.
: As always, looking with both eyes uncovered for your thought provoking
: comments,
: - Dorian Browne
--
Zhensheng Lou
: liv...@jnx.com wrote:
: If this is not your argument, what is? What logic lies behind
: your claim that Amnesty is following a western political line,
: when it routinely exposes abuses in western countries?
Sorry, it is not a logic, it is a general impression of many people.
Trying to making an unwaranted link between individual cases was a fake logic
with no logic at all.
: >: If Amnesty produces reports which are negative both about
: >: China and about the West, you ought to conclude that it is
: >: *not* showing any gross systematic bias - noone can guarantee
: >: that there is no bias in the detail of a particular report -
: >: not that it is biased in a general way.
: >
: > But the statistics showed that their reports are overhelmingly
: > criticizing the developing countries. The criticism towards the
: > west is only a minor portion. Are you going further to explain
: > that the western countries are indeed having less rights problems,
: > or that people in this world are simply not equal in their desire
: > or achievement for the human rights due to geographic location?
: Well, let's think. People executed in western Europe - zero.
: People executed in China - three thousand per year.
Funny. Do you think countries with a lawful capital punishment do worse than
those without in human rights? Do you think those people in the US or Canada
who demand re-installing the death punalty laws are the ones backing from a
high concern of human rights? There is nothing wrong whether to have
executions of criminals or not, all depending on the suitablity of such a
justice system to their own countries. Those who commit crimes that lead to
the loss of others' lives or other great damages to innocent people are
punishable to a degree that the people in that country feel appropriate.
The punishment should fit the crime; but whether it is fitting or not
virtually depends on the opinions of the society's majority, not of the
government. China is not an exception in this.
: Street Children killed by Brazilian police death squads -
: hundreds (thousands?) Street Children killed by American police
: death squads - how many?
You always try to give individual cases. OK, can you also give the number of
Mexicans killed or tortured by American police, and the number of Americans
killed by the Mexican police? It is just meaningless and endless to argue on
a case basis. Reports about China's human rights here are mostly having such
a blind spot. When a few individuals were sentenced, the media can amplify it
to give the general public 'all dark' image; while 120,000,000 people in China
were freed from poverty, which may mean that millions of lives have been saved,
the reportors just kept a deadly silence. Which is a bigger human right, lives
or speech?
: I think that if you look just a little closer at your statistics
: you will see equal abuses equally condemned. I don't see why
: you would expect mathematically equal numbers of reports. Is
: there a reason?
So you think the third world generally have more abuses than the west? I do
not expect mathematically equal numbers; I only want to point out that the
ruler you used to measure is your domestical ruler. In addition, don't forget
that many troubles in the developing countries were originally created by
those countries in which those human rights judgers reside. It is an injustice
that you put someone down, and then say,'look, how bad he is!' The moral way
is to rectify what was done wrong, instead of keeping humiliating the victims.
Dorian Browne
Zhensheng Lou wrote:
>
> : Dorian Browne (dcbr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Might it not be that there could generally be less cause for criticism
> : in nations where governments are answerable to the people through the
> : ballot box, where there is relative transparency in the decision-making
> : process and where a dissenting press is permited to expose abuses of
> : power without fear of retribution? Or does that betray cultural bias?
>
> : other different societies that are resented by the third world? What,
> : so we can find out what common ground there is between us, do you accept
> : to be inalienable human rights? In what way do you feel AI deviates
> : from our understanding of these?
>
> China almost in every occassions. Human rights in China was ever feriously
> criticized by AI at exactly the same time the western alia took an uniformed
> action. As for the third world, didn't you even notice that the west's failure
> in the UN to condemn China was because the third world supported China's 'no
> motion' resolution? Didn't you see the huge gap between the developing
> countries and the west? There has rarely been a case that a third world
> country turned their HR sword to any western country; but there are too often
> that this or that third world country was criticised, sanctioned, intervened
> or invaded by certain west countries, for the allerged rights abuses. At least
> to many observers, AI indeed tried every bit of its gut to co-operate such
> arogances. Some people in the west simply have a deeply rooted old colonist
> mentality. They naturally regard themselves as a saver for the other people.
> They are so easily forgetting a basic international law that any internal
> issues should be handled by the people in that country. Who gave these people
> such a long nose? When do they think the proper time to do such an unwanted
> bully? Are we still in an old ruthless black slavery time, or do these people
> think that as long as using a more 'civilized' human rights weapon they can
> still do whatever done in the history by 'fire and iron'?
You are choosing not to answer my questions, and instead reitterate your
beliefs in the complicity of Amnesty International and the West in using
Human rights as a weapon with which to beat China. We are obviously not
going to have a meeting of the minds on that topic.
I have no argument with you over the abuses of the colonial period. I
am glad to see that we at least both agree that slavery and forced
labour are unacceptable, even when they are imposed by one's own people.
>
> People in the third world are much more alert ever than before to the
> moral-less aggresors now. It is time for those dreamers to wake up the old
> dream. Regreting what was done wrong, and looking forward to a new human
> relationship is the only choice for a world harmony.
>
> : Finally, as you reject AI's criticisms of China as so much uninformed
> : western propaganda, what, if anything, do you feel could be construed as
> : justifiable criticism of China's social system? Is there room for
> : improvement? What is your dream for China? Should I emigrate there?
>
> Sorry. This is very single minded saying. I would equally object all your
> questioning even you replace China with the US or Canada in your questions,
> because they are seducing people's attention to 'China problem'.
I am sorry that you find my questioning objectionable and single
minded. I doubt many Americans or Canadians would object to responding
to whether anything could be construed as as justifiable criticism of
their social systems or whether there was room for improvement. Again,
cultural differences.
>
> But I am willing to tell my China dream: This great nation and its people
> should be respected as an equal member in our earth village; the humiliation
> she had suffered for centuries should not be continuing, no matter in what
> formats. The best way is for China to give a full blow on those long nose,
> instead of bearing, because this is the only way the aggressors learn things.
Great nations earn the respect of others according to how they treat
their own citizens, especially the dissenting ones.
>
> : As always, looking with both eyes uncovered for your thought provoking
> : comments,
>
> : - Dorian Browne
>
> --
Thank you for your timely response. It is obvious that we are not
communicating very well. Putting aside your perceptions of the west and
its long noses for the moment, what do you consider to be inalienable
human rights? We have first to agree on what they are for this debate
to be meaningful.
And thank you for sharing your dream for China. Once honour has been
satisfied by giving giving a full blow on those long noses, what sort of
society would you like to see develop in China?
I welcome the openess with which you share your point of view and your
tolerance for the dissenting views of others.
- Dorian Browne
rafaelro...@gmail.com
Read more about Iran human rights violations http://goo.gl/hTIYC