I don't quite understand -- was that caption meant to show that the han chinese were responsible for the violence now upon them or something?
Breaking news!!
- Thread starter zoom
- Start date
- Status
I don't quite understand -- was that caption meant to show that the han chinese were responsible for the violence now upon them or something?
Quickie
Colonel
I don't quite understand -- was that caption meant to show that the han chinese were responsible for the violence now upon them or something?
You said it right. In other words, they're saying violence and killings is politically justifiable.
Last edited:
Mr T
Senior Member
There is no double standard. Tibetans and Uighurs have political complaints but have no legal, peaceful means to express them. That does not mean they have the right to kill or otherwise harm innocent people, but it at least explains why riots can occur. If they had more freedoms and a more inclusive political system arguably they wouldn't riot or it would happen far less frequently. And it's debatable as to whether in China riots occur and the police responds, or the police responds to an "illegal" protest and that's when the violence starts. So you can't complain if media groups sometimes go with the second interpretation.
And you're falling into the old trap of complaining about "the western media". There is no such thing. There is a diverse range of media outlets from dozens of countries. They do not all have an "anti-China agenda". I might as well say that all Chinese people are rude and dirty, because some shout and spit in the street.
Now let's get off this red herring of a discussion about reporting of civil unrest in China. I didn't raise it, so if you want to have the last word feel free to send me a PM.
Those who have been rioting recently in the UK have no political complaint that anyone is aware of but more importantly they have the freedom to peacefully protest. That's the point that people are making. If you have a means of expressing a grievance, use it. You can't riot just because it feels good. For God's sake, there were young people interviewed on the news who admitted they had jobs and couldn't come up with a credible reason explaining why they were causing trouble.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
It is always amusing to see some people coming up with ever more elaborate lists of criteria to try and create a distinction when there isn't one.
People protest peacefully in China all the time. The likes of the BBC quote the Chinese released stats on large numbers of such protest gleefully trying to portray it as if it is evidence of popular dissatisfaction. Police try to contain the protests, as they would in any country and only use force to dispel them when it turns violent, again, as any police force anywhere in the world would do.
And you obviously live in a different country to me if you can come out with a straight face to argue that people in the UK have the freedom to protest peacefully without fear of punishment.
Ever heard of the word 'kettling'?
People protest peacefully in China all the time. The likes of the BBC quote the Chinese released stats on large numbers of such protest gleefully trying to portray it as if it is evidence of popular dissatisfaction. Police try to contain the protests, as they would in any country and only use force to dispel them when it turns violent, again, as any police force anywhere in the world would do.
And you obviously live in a different country to me if you can come out with a straight face to argue that people in the UK have the freedom to protest peacefully without fear of punishment.
Ever heard of the word 'kettling'?
Mr T
Senior Member
You're being disingenuous. You know that in China there is no (effective) right to protest. Police reserve the right to break up protests and arrest people who take part, whether or not they turn violent. Some protests are tolerated, but if I or anyone else stood in the middle of Beijing or Lhasa with a sign saying "end one party rule, we need multi-party elections" I would be arrested very swiftly. Whereas in the UK, I'm free to wave a sign saying that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is bad for the UK and we need a new election.
Yes, I know about kettling, and I don't see that as punishment. It's not pleasant, but it's a temporary inconvenience. And it normally only happens when there is violence, it's not a default response to a protest.
For example, in 2002 the Countryside Alliance had around 400,000 people in London. There was no kettling then. Why? Because the protesters were peaceful.
Furthermore, the people who protested outside the police station after Mark D was shot were not arrested or kettled. Why? Because they peaceful (at least at the start). If people continued to protest peacefully about the shooting or raised a different issue, but didn't resort to violence, there would have been little police action other than the usual monitoring of the situation.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
That's a disingenuous example and you know it. Try waving a sign saying 'the 9/11 attackers are heros' in Time Square and see how long you last.
Typical ignorant response of someone who has never ever been kettled.
Let's see you make that statement after you have tasted what this 'temporary inconvenience' is like for yourself.
That's a pointless distinction. No-one ever said all protests in the UK are automatically kettled, just like no-one can suggest all peaceful protests in China are automatically dispersed.
However, if you can make the point that any protest in China can be dispersed if the people in power do not like what people are protesting about, I can say with just as much validity that any protest in the UK can be kettled if someone in power feels like it.
There is no clearly outlined criteria for when kettling should and shouldn't be used. It is largely down to the police when they want to employ that tactic, and the 'threat of violence' is enough reason for an entirely peaceful protest to be kettled, just as 'threat of violence' can be used as an excuse to dispel a peaceful protest in China.
Mr T
Senior Member
Protesting or campaigning in public for a change of government is the same as supporting terrorists? Okayyy, clearly it's not possible to have a rational discussion with you on this subject.
Last edited:
Both scenarios would be very sensitive to both for both the government and public though, so that's something.
---
Anyway as siege said we should get back on topic.
Hey look, apparently giant birds lived alongside dinosaurs >_>
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Cut the mock outrage already. Whoever said they two are morally the same? Besides, like it or not, those terrorists are considered heros in many parts of the world. That is just a fact. We can not like it, but we cannot deny it either.
You deliberately picked a taboo subject in China, and I picked a taboo subject for protest in the west. The point is that there are certain behavior in public that is not tolerated in any society/country. Just because something is ok in one country does not mean it is a good idea to do the same in another, nor do you have any authority to dictate what should and shouldn't be acceptable.
It is always amusing how sanctimonious individuals in the west can be so intolerant of anything different while preaching about tolerance and freedoms.
Two points: The shot that let to police killing Mark D. proved to be a police issue bullet. So in that incident only the police used fire arms. But the succeeding rioting was only incited by this incident:
"Cameron blames 'sick' society after Birmingham deaths" is a citation from the web site of the Daily Telegraph of today.
"Cameron blames 'sick' society after Birmingham deaths" is a citation from the web site of the Daily Telegraph of today.
- Status