4 June censorship in China

[Crocodile]

im still slightly confused about the objectives of the people who were at the vigil.

from what i gather:

the vigil is to remember those who died on june 4th 1989.

but it appears the speakers were telling China to acknowledge the events and apologise? (lest we forget... there were also PLA soldiers amongst the dead)

and some posters on this thread are suggesting democracy?

And what is your point? That everything isn't simple and all people don't agree on the same thing?

There were between 60,000 and 150,000 people gathered in Hong Kong last night. I doubt that all people were there for the exact same reason - everyone was there for their own individual reason. Same as on this forum, people have put forward their views, some discussing democracy, some freedom of speech, some human rights. And then there are just people who are pro-CCP.

[Football16]

I am in no way diminishing the horror of 1989 or suggesting that China is right in its handling of that event even now but let's face it, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or like the Bible says: "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Not wanting to get it going on religion but I love that quote.

I concluded long ago as an undergrad studying the reasons for the USA being in Vietnam that morality cannot be the cornerstone of foreign policy and international relations. It is far better to trade and work together than to hector and lecture. Look at the suffering in Africa now. Vastly worse than the events of 20 years ago - again not saying to let it go.

Tit for Tat maybe... or one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

Note in the excerpts on this story these lines: (go to link to see story):

"...the US ...insists the detainees have been cleared of being "enemy combatants"."

"Most of the 17 were handed to the United States from Pakistan for bounties in late 2001."

Any one else find it ironic that it has taken the USA since 2001 to reach this conclusion?

Remember Guantanamo is illegal according to generally accepted laws of warfare (which the US don't adhere to just as they don't accept the World Criminal Court as other western nations do - thus any wrong doing on the part of Americans will never be judged in that court of law)


China lashes out over Gitmo prisoner request
By Steve Holland for Radio Australia
Posted Tue Jun 2, 2009 11:20pm AEST

The US insists the detainees have been cleared of being 'enemy combatants'. (Reuters: Joe Skipper )

The Australian Government is facing a diplomatic quandary after China publicly opposed a US request for Australia to accept up to 10 Chinese Uighurs detained in Guantanamo Bay.


China lashes out over Gitmo prisoner request - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[UK/HKboy]

UK/HK Boy: Do you have any evidence whatsoever that PLA soldiers were among the dead? Are you saying the protestors were really armed? I guess, according to you, everyone has it wrong and we should be talking about the "battle" of Tianamen Square.

There are statistics showing there were PLA soldiers amongst the dead. Although less than the students, but still dozens.

i am not saying everyone is wrong, because not everyone here has the same views and i don't think anyone here can claim to have the truth about what went on there...

but if you have a look at the Loftus and Palmer psychological experiment about wording influencing our perception. you can see how a "massacre" sounds worse than "battle". and i think its use in the media contributes to the general view that the PLA were villians and the student protestors were the heroes.

[JT06]

I have also seen photos of PLA sodiers being killed. However, in the context of a government mobilising hundreds of thousands of armed troops to suppress a protest by unarmed civilians (I have not seen any evidence that the demonstrators were armed, at least not with guns, depends if you call pots and pans or perhaps anything you can find at home weapons), shooting their way into Tiananmen (many eyewitness accounts seem to concur that most deaths were on the way to the square, not inside the square. The Beijing people were trying to block the army trucks and tanks from entering the city and the square, and the army shot them with automatic rifles), the people were rightfully angry. So when they got hold a a few PLA sodiers they killed them. I'm not saying that the people were right in killing them. But can you really compare the level of violence, and balance of (fire) power, between the PLA and the civilians in Beijing?

Yes, many Hong Kong demonstrators demand an apology from the Mainland Government, because they think the Mainland Government was wrong to open fire on their own people. Why is the Mainland Government completely silent now, not even trying to defend itself? Because deep down they know that's what they did: they deployed the army to kill their own people.

Yes some Hong Kong people are demanding democracy, because they believe that only when the power is with the people that there can be real check-and-balance agasint corruption, social injustice, and regime brutality. Sure you can cite a hundred examples of how a democratic governemnt can also be brutal to its own people, but do you really believe that it has a higher chance of doing that than a dictatorship? Or perhaps you would say that a western style democracy is not suitable to China, at least it cannot be implemented overnight. I think only really naive people would think that the CCP may collapse overnight and everything would be great immediately. The road to democracy will be long and winding, we know, even with the best intentions from the government, which is not even likely. However, it is important to keep the demand, the ultimate goal, alive. If people stop asking for it, even in such a peaceful way as a candlight vigil, there will be absolutely no incentive for those in power to even slightly release their power, especially as China becomes richer and richer, and the material benefit that comes with such power become more and more attractive.

[Mat]

.

Yes some Hong Kong people are demanding democracy, because they believe that only when the power is with the people that there can be real check-and-balance agasint corruption, social injustice, and regime brutality.

While I like your post, just want to point out that this real check-and-balance against corruption, social injustice, and regime brutality is a bit utopic.

India is a democracy - yet it is filled with corruption, social injustice and brutality (Disclamer: "I have NOTHING against indians"...before I get shot down by some forum resident)

[pin]

While I like your post, just want to point out that this real check-and-balance against corruption, social injustice, and regime brutality is a bit utopic.

India is a democracy - yet it is filled with corruption, social injustice and brutality (Disclamer: "I have NOTHING against indians"...before I get shot down by some forum resident)

Yes, but for all its sins, democracy is doing its best in India. Its trying its best to work there and the most recent elections shows that it is getting somewhere.

Every country has corruptions, social injustice, etc etc, both democracies and dictatorships, however democracy is by far the lesser of all the evils.

at least with democracy you have checks and balances. and in india there are checks and balances with democracies. parties are voted out if the people do not want them in.

btw why did you pick india over say the USA or australia?

[Mat]

btw why did you pick india over say the USA or australia?

On a purely coincidential basis. I was a few weeks ago and it poped in my head as an example.

[Mat]

Yes, but for all its sins, democracy is doing its best in India. Its trying its best to work there and the most recent elections shows that it is getting somewhere.

Didn't say it wasn't. Just pointed out that this part of anotherwise good post, was a bit naive, that's it.

[Crocodile]

The BBC crew trying to do some filming.

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Media banned from Tiananmen Square

Two men with umbrellas: Don't mind us, we are just people with umbrellas.

[JT06]

I agree that democracy is not perfect. I certainly don't think democracy can solve all problems. Far from it. But yes, I believe, assuming everything being equal, democracy is better than dictatorship in terms check-and-balance, corruption, and freedom. I do realise that these things also depends on many other factors: history, customs, social fabric, economic development, so on and so forth. However, do you think a state where the governemnt tend to be a bit more corrupt and brutal to begin with, will be better off in a democratic setting or in a dictatorship? That's my point. Can you imagine India being less corrupt if it were not a democracy, but a dictatorship?

I'm not suggesting that if China become democratic it will have no corruption at all, and everyone will be perfectly free (if there is such a thing). But don't you think some form of democracy will introduce more check-and-balance (more than now) into the system that may put more pressure on the governemnt to improve itself? I don't think this is naive.

Let me try to come up with a mataphor.

A man doesn't have enough vitamin A in his body, so his vision is impaired, which makes him stumble and fall a lot and he always hurt himself. He goes to the doctor, and the doctor says, "Eat some carrots, or take some vitamin A supplements! You're going blind because you don't have enough vitamin A in your body! You're stumbling a lot because you can't see properly!" The man says, "But look at Jimmy, he has perfectly good vision yet he still stumbles a lot! That proves that vitamin A can't make me stumble less! Doesn't this prove that vitamin A wouldn't do me any good?" Actually, Jimmy stumbles because he always drags his feet when he walks. If he were blind, he would surely trip over even more than now.

Sorry... I'm not very good with mataphors. hahahaha... this is so bad it's actually making myself laugh... :P have a good weekend guys. It was nice to have this debate!