Re: Boycott of Olympics
Schroedinger said:
Oh just because Rudd doesn't know something means it didn't happen. I mean Rudd doesn't understand economics, so by your retarded logic that means economics exists. WOO I'M GONNA GO COLLECT MY FREE GOLD HOUSE.
No the point is that those who make allegations should back up those allegations with evidence.
slidey said:
I highlighted the numerous human rights abuses earlier in this thread. A few of them are regarding freedom (of speech and otherwise), torture, censorship, strong class division, excessive force, religious intolerance, and silencing of political and ideological opponents.
Identifying human rights abuses is a relative exercise because there are incidences of these "abuses" in practically every country, including Australia, as the Stolen Generation and detained refugees for instance will attest. The question is whether the incidences of human rights abuses in the country in question, given the particular circumstances of that country, are far too high. If the country in question is China, I would answer no to the question.
Freedom (of speech and otherwise) and silencing of political opponents: It is not as bad as those who've never set foot in China imagine. In private, people can say what they like. In public, they can also say what they like. The limits are on organisations that have an ulterior political agenda to subvert the national polity (these organisations often being funded by the CIA).
Torture: Please cite specific examples where torture was committed.
Censorship: Yes it happens. But some degree of censorship is exercised by every government. In addition, media oligopolies tend to engage in strong self-censorship (for instance try and post a left-wing comment in "The Australian"). Australian media for instance is strongly biased against China. In one sense this is even more dangerous because people regard what they're fed by the media as the "truth" simply because they live in a democracy.
Strong class division: Not relaly a human rights abuse. You can't have both no class division and a transition to the market economy. On the one hand you refer to "Communist" China, on the other hand you complain about its class division, so which is it>?
excessive force: I'm guessing that this is a reference to the Tiananmen incident. Part of the reason why China did not send in the military to crush the violent tibetan protest is that they've learned from the mistakes of tiananmen. That is significant as it shows that China no longer engages in the practice. Also see Kent State Massacre.
religious tolerance: The practice of the Abrahamic religions is permitted. falun gong is not a religion. It's a part-cult, part embarrassing-China organisation.
A few particular circumstances to consider: China is a developing nation that relies on government efficacy and action (in contrast to due process and rule of law). No doubt emphasis on the latter will increase as its economy matures past take-off. Asian culture generally values national polity and social objectives higher than pursuit of individual objectives. That is why, for instance Singapore (despite being a developed nation) has the highest capital punishment rate in the world, and why south east asian countries tend to enact harsh punishments for drug offences.