Human Rights in China

[69dodge]

In several places in your responses, you simply said "Lies." You gave no evidence whatsoever for your claim that this was a lie;

I don't think he was saying you lied. I think he was just saying that you should have used the word "lies" instead of "lays".

 

[69dodge]

I think we westeners often loose the perspective that while democracy is the best way to run a country (at least in our opinion), it is certainly not the only good way.

Lose.

(Just so Art doesn't have to say it. )

 

[MRC_Hans]

Lose.

(Just so Art doesn't have to say it. )

Ahh, yes, thanks. I'ts not the words you are in doubt about that get you, it's those you think you know .

Hans

 

[The Painter]

I thought you could get in trouble for talking like this on the internet in China? I always thought the Chinese government was very restrictive regarding internet use.

I’ve wondered about information dissemination in China. For example; does the majority of the general population even know we’ve been on the Moon? I also wonder about information getting out of China. I seem to recall a story were thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people died in an earthquake and the outside world didn’t find out about it until 5 or 10 years later.

 

[Wolfman]

I thought you could get in trouble for talking like this on the internet in China? I always thought the Chinese government was very restrictive regarding internet use.

I’ve wondered about information dissemination in China. For example; does the majority of the general population even know we’ve been on the Moon? I also wonder about information getting out of China. I seem to recall a story were thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people died in an earthquake and the outside world didn’t find out about it until 5 or 10 years later.

That isn't really an accurate view of China at all.

In regards to the moon, the Chinese gov't has launched manned rockets into space, and announced its intentions to put men on the moon, and on Mars (declarations that have resulted in the U.S. declaring an intention to revamp its space programs also).

As stated elsewhere, at least in urban centers, Chinese have free access to the internet, and despite gov't efforts to censor it, most Chinese know how to get around those blocks, so they have access to exactly the same information online that you or I do.

Scientific development is seen as crucial to China's growth, and is a key emphasis...what sense would it make to keep Chinese people ignorant of scientific truths. Quite the opposite, Chinese scientists are today leading the world in many areas, and continuing to grow in dominance.

The picture you have of China is a picture that would have been at least partially true 20 or 30 years ago. But not today. In fact, I would bet that your average Chinese is more aware of international issues (those outside their own country) than the majority of North Americans are.

And Chinese blogs, message boards, forums, etc. are multiplying at an incredible rate. What I have said here would be relatively mild compared to what many Chinese are writing everyday online. Unfortunately, such discussions are almost always in Chinese, but you can find an example of some of the very spirited debate (and the wide range of opinions that are publicly stated) at a site such as bbs.chinadaily.com.cn. This is a discussion forum hosted by the China Daily newspaper, an English-language newspaper that is controlled and published by the Chinese government. Everything on that site is most certainly read by the government, and is 100% accessible to all Chinese. And there are many posts that are openly critical of the Chinese government, that raise numerous public issues, etc. I'd really very much encourage anyone who wants an accurate picture of what Chinese people are talking about today to check out that site; you'll be surprised at the things that Chinese people are saying, in public, with full gov't knowledge.

One of the greatest difficulties whenever I discuss China is that people have images or opinions of China based on things that happened 10, 20, or 30 years ago; but they don't understand just how rapid the changes in China have been (such as those I described in my initial post). It would be roughly equivalent to someone saying that they don't like the U.S. because they still practice slavery. Yeah, they did it at one time...but not any more.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm sure others have better ones, but if anybody still has an image of the streets of Beijing like in the propaganda movies of the seventies with a river of bicycles and pedestrians, perhaps this shot from a hotel window, taken in 2005, can give some perspective.

Hans

 

[Art Vandelay]

Another point that I think should be made is that when we talk about human rights abuses of China, we're not talking about abuses just of Chinese rights. When the government restricts my ability to communicate with Chinese citizens, it is restricting the rights not only of the citizen, but of me. A government that has the ability to suppress the truth poses a danger to the entire world community, as it means that it has access to millions of citizens acting under false beliefs. A nuke is a WMD, but so is a million people held under a totalitarian state.

Also, consider the SARS outbreak. China withheld vital information that could have stopped it much sooner. In these days of globalization, it is no longer the case that what a government does within its own borders is its own business.

One of the greatest difficulties whenever I discuss China is that people have images or opinions of China based on things that happened 10, 20, or 30 years ago; but they don't understand just how rapid the changes in China have been (such as those I described in my initial post). It would be roughly equivalent to someone saying that they don't like the U.S. because they still practice slavery. Yeah, they did it at one time...but not any more.

That' hardly a legitimate comparison. No one alive today was alive when the US had slavery, let alone was part of it. No adult wasn't alive during the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and there are people who were involved in it who are still in the government.

I don't think he was saying you lied. I think he was just saying that you should have used the word "lies" instead of "lays".

Yeah, I realized after I posted it that it might be misinterpreted. Soory for the confusion.

 

[Wolfman]

Another point that I think should be made is that when we talk about human rights abuses of China, we're not talking about abuses just of Chinese rights. When the government restricts my ability to communicate with Chinese citizens, it is restricting the rights not only of the citizen, but of me. A government that has the ability to suppress the truth poses a danger to the entire world community, as it means that it has access to millions of citizens acting under false beliefs. A nuke is a WMD, but so is a million people held under a totalitarian state.

I agree 100%.

Please show me anywhere in my post where I have said China does not have human rights violations, or that such violations are acceptable. I've gone out of my way to repeat, time after time, that China has human rights problems, and that such problems need to be addressed and improved.

I don't know of any country on the planet that does not have some degree of human rights abuses. Please feel free to enlighten me if you do.

My argument, from the beginning, has been that China is moving/evolving in the right direction. I have made a significant effort to look at China over a period of time, showing development in a specific direction. All of your responses seem to focus on one distinct snapshot, "what happens today", without any context for that snapshot.

Let's put this in more neutral terms; instead of talking about specific nations, let's just talk about two hypothetical nations. The first is a dictatorship which still has a lot of abuses, but over the past 20 years has been moving very steadily in a direction of granting greater freedom to its people. The second is a democracy that has enjoyed a high level of freedom, but which is currently moving in a direction of decreasing peoples' freedoms, using fear as a tool to manipulate the populace into accepting that erosion of their rights.

Now, if I take a snapshot picture of these two countries right now, the latter country is undoubtedly way ahead of the former. But if I take a more long-term look at the two countries, and the trends they are showing, I'd argue that the latter country is the one that deserves stronger criticism and concern.

Let me state this again. I agree 100% that China has human rights abuses. I agree 100% that China's government is a dictatorship which restricts many individual freedoms. I agree 100% that the Chinese people should be allowed to have more freedom. I agree 100% that other nations should not turn a blind eye to these abuses, and should actively encourage the development of greater freedom for everyone in China.

My intention is to show how ignorant and pointless the "snapshot" picture of China is. Every democratic nation on the planet has gone through a process of evolution from a nation that inflicted significant human rights abuses on its people, to a nation that allows freedom and equality. The United States, which was founded on the principles of freedom and equality, still had to fight through issues of slavery, racism, women's rights, etc. These things did not come "automatically", just because the U.S. was a democracy. Only the ignorant think that democracy, or even a Bill of Rights, guarantees these things. The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were already in place when these human rights abuses were conducted under the democratically elected government of the United States of America.

How long did it take the United States to get from where it was when it was founded -- blacks as slaves; Asians with few/no rights; native peoples being slaughtered, their cultures destroyed; women restricted from education, and not allowed to vote; etc. -- to the point it is at today? Would it have been possible, by any leap of the imagination, to go from that point to the point the U.S. is at today in one sudden 5 or 10 year period? Of course not. It took time, it took a process of both social and political evolution.

So by what argument can you possibly justify the view that other countries must accomplish that which the United States itself -- founded on principles of equality and freedom -- was unable to accomplish? Why is it that its okay that it took the U.S. more than 200 years to accomplish this transformation, but other nations must do it immediately?

China is moving in the right direction. This is, in my opinion, demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt if one looks at the past 10-15 years of development within China. In fact, China has been moving faster in granting greater freedom and equality to its people than the U.S. did in granting greater freedom and equality to blacks, Asians, native peoples, or women. The People's Republic of China, under the Communists, was formed 58 years ago. By comparison, what were the "rights" and "freedoms" of these groups 58 years after the United States of America was formed?

And what policy is more likely to encourage China to continue moving in that direction? A policy of isolation and aggression, which only causes the Chinese government to become more restrictive, more self-defensive? Or a policy of engagement, providing positive incentives for the Chinese government to continue in the process of positive change and development that it is already on?

 

[pipelineaudio]

How long did it take the United States to get from where it was when it was founded -- blacks as slaves; Asians with few/no rights; native peoples being slaughtered, their cultures destroyed; women restricted from education, and not allowed to vote; etc. -- to the point it is at today? Would it have been possible, by any leap of the imagination, to go from that point to the point the U.S. is at today in one sudden 5 or 10 year period? Of course not. It took time, it took a process of both social and political evolution.

So by what argument can you possibly justify the view that other countries must accomplish that which the United States itself -- founded on principles of equality and freedom -- was unable to accomplish? Why is it that its okay that it took the U.S. more than 200 years to accomplish this transformation, but other nations must do it immediately?

China is moving in the right direction. This is, in my opinion, demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt if one looks at the past 10-15 years of development within China. In fact, China has been moving faster in granting greater freedom and equality to its people than the U.S. did in granting greater freedom and equality to blacks, Asians, native peoples, or women. The People's Republic of China, under the Communists, was formed 58 years ago. By comparison, what were the "rights" and "freedoms" of these groups 58 years after the United States of America was formed?

And what policy is more likely to encourage China to continue moving in that direction? A policy of isolation and aggression, which only causes the Chinese government to become more restrictive, more self-defensive? Or a policy of engagement, providing positive incentives for the Chinese government to continue in the process of positive change and development that it is already on?

you are making a BIG mistake in this logic...

That was the WORLD that acted this way, the US was a leader in ending the problems you spoke of.

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

you are making a BIG mistake in this logic...

That was the WORLD that acted this way, the US was a leader in ending the problems you spoke of.

Not in the case of slavery. The U.S. was one of the last places to ban it.

 

[pipelineaudio]

true regarding slavery for sure...

 

[The Atheist]

And what policy is more likely to encourage China to continue moving in that direction? A policy of isolation and aggression, which only causes the Chinese government to become more restrictive, more self-defensive? Or a policy of engagement, providing positive incentives for the Chinese government to continue in the process of positive change and development that it is already on?

Crikey! I hope they're paying you plenty, you're putting a great case for one of NZ's favourite pals. We are the country of "three firsts". I also have associates who travel to China and do extensive business with Chinese companies, so I hear what you're saying.

One beef I have with them is Falun Gong; I join their protest in Auckland quite frequently. Are the abuses of these harmless little guys lessening at all? They tell me that things are as bad as ever in China for the ones they've left behind.

We also still had the "no visible protest" rule in force at the last Leader's visit only 9 months ago. So, you're telling me protest in China is allowed, but the leader isn't allowed to see overseas protests against him? Unless our diplomatic corps is well out-of-date.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Please show me anywhere in my post where I have said China does not have human rights violations, or that such violations are acceptable.

Show me where I've said that you've said they don't.

All of your responses seem to focus on one distinct snapshot, "what happens today", without any context for that snapshot.

No, I'm responding to what I've seen over my lifetime.

Let's put this in more neutral terms; instead of talking about specific nations, let's just talk about two hypothetical nations.

Just because you don't name them doesn't mean that you aren't talking about specific nations.

But if I take a more long-term look at the two countries, and the trends they are showing, I'd argue that the latter country is the one that deserves stronger criticism and concern.

And I'd disagree.

My intention is to show how ignorant and pointless the "snapshot" picture of China is.

If you're going to insult other people, you don't have much standing for complaining about other people's posting style.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were already in place when these human rights abuses were conducted under the democratically elected government of the United States of America.

The 13th and 14th Amendment weren't.

Would it have been possible, by any leap of the imagination, to go from that point to the point the U.S. is at today in one sudden 5 or 10 year period?

If I blow someone's house up, would it be possible for me to rebuild it in less than a week? If the answer is "no", then maybe I shouldn't go around blowing people's houses up.

So by what argument can you possibly justify the view that other countries must accomplish that which the United States itself -- founded on principles of equality and freedom -- was unable to accomplish?

It wasn't unable, it was unwilling. Once the Senators who supported slavery seceded, it took only a few years to outlaw slavery.

Why is it that its okay that it took the U.S. more than 200 years to accomplish this transformation, but other nations must do it immediately?

When have I ever said that slavery 200 years ago was okay?

The People's Republic of China, under the Communists, was formed 58 years ago.

And yet, the PRC claims Taiwan on the basis that it (the PRC) IS China, and Taiwan is part of China. If China is only 58 years old, then Taiwan has never been a part of China.

And what policy is more likely to encourage China to continue moving in that direction? A policy of isolation and aggression, which only causes the Chinese government to become more restrictive, more self-defensive? Or a policy of engagement, providing positive incentives for the Chinese government to continue in the process of positive change and development that it is already on?

Engagement only provides an incentive if their are consequences for failure. And there are issues of morality apart from issues of efficacy.

You seem to be saying that China's previous abuses somehow should mute criticism of their current abuses. That's a rather perverse position; doesn't it suggest to the Chinese that continuing the abuses today will make the world more accepting of abuses tomorrow? If someone raped 10 women last year, and only 5 this year, should we hold off our criticism?

And what's this stuff about how young China is? China has had thousands of years to get its act together. Why should we restart the clock every time there's a change in government? That's like calculating a racecar's time, not from the starting gun, but from the last pit stop.

 

[Wolfman]

Ah, Falun Gong. Now there is one of the biggest, stupidest mistakes the Chinese gov't's made in the past ten years. Please don't think I'm trying to downplay this, I think that the entire situation is a mess, and was wrong. I have friends who have personally suffered because of this (one who's grandfather was imprisoned for a year, another who was kicked out of university, both for being Falun Gong practitioners).

I'd like to give more background and detail on this, to help people understand why the Chinese gov't acted this way. Please note, this is not to try to justify their actions in any way; just explaining it from their perspective.

With all the different religions in China, both new and established, why did the Chinese gov't single out Falun Gong for such a massive, repressive crack-down? Because there were a lot more cultural/historical factors in play than most people are aware of.

First, you must know more about China's history, particularly the 1800s, when Europeans were colonizing China, and subjecting the Chinese people to terribly abusive policies. The Chinese emperor at that time was weak, forced to accede to numerous demands from these foreign governments. Military attempts at repelling the foreigners were easily defeated.

Then, in southern China, a new movement began, today called the "Boxer Rebellion". It was started by a man who created a mixture of Christian and Buddhist teachings, in which he taught that he was the reincarnation of Jesus. He created a variety of 'martial arts' practices which, if used properly, would cure any sickness, and make his followers immune to bullets, bayonettes, etc. He built up a following of radically devoted followers, and then launched a civil war, one directed both at driving out the foreigners, and at overthrowing the weak, corrupt Chinese government.

He almost succeeded. The Emperor, faced with the prospect of being executed, allied himself with the foreign forces, and through their combined efforts were able to defeat the boxers.

Now, let's look at Falun Gong, and its founder, Li Hongzhi. In Chinese literature at that time, Li Hongzhi claimed to be the reincarnation of Sakyamuni, the founder of Buddhism. He claimed that he had developed a special form of martial arts which, if practiced, would cure all illnesses, and grant you invulnerability to physical harm. And he was beginning to develop quite an obsessively dedicated group of followers.

To the Chinese gov't, the comparison with the Boxers was obvious; and they saw it as a potential threat to their government. So, they reacted.

Now, their reaction was way, WAY over the top. All they really needed to do was arrest/condemn Li Hongzhi. He was, by any standard, a fraud, a con man, and a criminal. He told his followers to give him all their money, leaving old couples destitute while he lived a life of luxury. He lied, cheated, and stole. If the Chinese gov't had simply taken legal actions against Li Hongzhi, I doubt the rest of the world would have even noticed, or cared. Just another snake oil salesman who has been caught.

But the Chinese gov't decided instead to outlaw the entire religion, and to arrest anyone who practiced it. Entirely unnecessary overkill, which resulted in thrusting Falun Gong into the international spotlight, and turning Li Hongzhi into a hero.

Now, keep in mind, Falun Gong is rather scary, when one considers its more 'devoted' practitioners. These are people who set themselves on fire as a form of protest; not because they believe that martyrdom is the only way to gain attention/freedom for Falun Gong practitioners, but because they believe that they won't be hurt by the flames. And there are plentiful stories of people denying necessary medical care for themselves, or their children, because they believe practicing Falun Gong will cure all problems. But that's not much different than a lot of other cults out there.


Falun Gong's biggest 'crime' was simply in that it ended up resembling the Boxer movement too closely, which triggered a massive overreaction from the government. And that led to what are, undeniably, unjustifiable human rights abuses.

Just please, don't anyone try to make a 'hero' or 'martyr' out of Li Hongzhi. The average citizens of China who are persecuted simply for practicing a certain form of exercise, called Falun Gong, deserve sympathy and support. Li Hongzhi deserves none of that.

 

[The Atheist]

Thanks for that, although I'd dispute you on the scariness of the movement. I don't think their ideology's that much dumber than scientology or mormonism.

Why then, is the crackdown still continuing?

 

[Wolfman]

Thanks for that, although I'd dispute you on the scariness of the movement. I don't think their ideology's that much dumber than scientology or mormonism.

Why then, is the crackdown still continuing?

Oh, I'm not saying that I personally thought that it is 'scary', no moreso than a lot of other cults out there. I was explaining the Chinese gov't perspective, not mine.

And it is still continuing for one simple reason: face. Having declared it as evil, they cannot turn around and say its not evil, without admitting they were wrong, and thereby losing face.

 

[Wolfman]

You seem to be saying that China's previous abuses somehow should mute criticism of their current abuses. That's a rather perverse position; doesn't it suggest to the Chinese that continuing the abuses today will make the world more accepting of abuses tomorrow? If someone raped 10 women last year, and only 5 this year, should we hold off our criticism?

And what's this stuff about how young China is? China has had thousands of years to get its act together. Why should we restart the clock every time there's a change in government? That's like calculating a racecar's time, not from the starting gun, but from the last pit stop.

Ai ya. We're going in circles here. Again...where have I argued that China's previous abuses should somehow mute criticism of their current abuses? I've been quite plain in condemning every abuse, in stating that it is wrong. I don't know how many more times, or in how many different ways, I can say it!

READ this. Don't just project your own interpretations on it. I am not talking about the existence, or lack thereof, of human rights abuses. What I am discussing is our reaction to those abuses, what is the best way to accomplish positive, enduring change for the Chinese people.

I'm not talking about parroting politically correct statements. I'm not talking about getting on your grandstand to declare how much more morally superior one country is than another. I am focusing on plain, pragmatic realities.

I've already listed examples of how Chinese people have been hurt (not helped) by outsiders who have "good intentions", but who don't really understand a damn thing about what they're actually doing. Who, through their "well-intentioned" efforts, end up only causing more harm to the Chinese. And I'm damn tired of people justifying IGNORANT policies and actions with the blanket banner of "human rights". I am integrally concerned with human rights in China, from a far more selfish perspective than you are...I am living here, my closest friends are living here. Virtually every person I know is affected personally by the issues we are discussing here. If I seem to take this rather personally at times, it is because it is personal. Fact is, for you, everything you are arguing is theory. Its safe. If you're right, or if you're wrong, it won't actually affect you. But it affects me. It affects my friends.

China has very definite human rights abuses. And those abuses need to be stopped. I have stated that over and over and over and over again. If it hasn't gotten through to you yet, I doubt it ever will.

What I am focusing on is how best to improve the situation for the Chinese people, and how to bring about the greatest positive changes in the Chinese government. Not temporary changes, that make the "human rights" junkies get a thrill. But real, long-lasting changes, that will benefit the Chinese people for generations to come.

There is absolute, definite, concrete proof that, in the past 15 years, as China has not only opened up to the outside world, but as the outside world has also engaged more with China, that the human rights of the Chinese people have increased significantly. And that this process is continuing to happen. And I use that as the basis for an argument that this process should be allowed to continue. That China will achieve far, far greater growth and development in human rights through positive incentives and cooperation from other nations, than it will through policies of isolation and condemnation.

I'm not talking about not criticizing the gov't, or ignoring their abuses. Just pointing out that there are many different approaches to such criticism, and to bringing about change. If I do something wrong, and a friend points it out, I'll be willing to listen, and perhaps to change. If I do something wrong and an opponent/enemy points it out, I will react defensively even if they're wrong, and will be unlikely to change. This is human nature. The Chinese are no more immune to it than anyone else.

You seem to be one of those "black-and-white", people...the "you're either with us, or against us" type. If I don't simply condemn China, and refuse to cooperate with the government in any way, then that means I must condone their activities. Sorry, but I don't see the world that way; I think it is quite possible to condemn the abuses, but still engage with the government to encourage continued positive change and growth.

And I'm not talking theory. I'm one of the very first foreigners in China to have the right to set up a provincial-level non-profit organization for a minority group in China. Our works focuses on a daily basis on improving the situation for these people. We're having a very positive, measurable impact.

I guess that, when I balance my own actual experience and observed, proven results against the arguments of people who've never visited China, who speak only on theories that, right or wrong will never affect them anyway, I tend to trust more to my own experience.

And yeah, I know this response is gonna' come across as rather arrogant and 'holier-than-thou'. But quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing Chinese people sacrificed at the altar of political correctness (reference my first post, and the examples I gave).

We hear all the time about how the Chinese gov't hurts the Chinese people; I seek to show how ignorant actions, made without understanding China, hurt the Chinese just as much. I don't say you should ignore the problems here, or that you should justify them. Only that if you don't actually understand the situation, then "caution is the better part of valor" might be good advice for you; because your well-intentioned efforts may end up doing more help than harm to those in China -- both foreign and Chinese -- who actually are improving Chinese lives, every day.

 

[Art Vandelay]

And it is still continuing for one simple reason: face. Having declared it as evil, they cannot turn around and say its not evil, without admitting they were wrong, and thereby losing face.

Seems like they could say "It's still evil, but the power of the glorious nation of China has so thoroughly disrupted it that further suppression is not necessary".

Ai ya. We're going in circles here. Again...where have I argued that China's previous abuses should somehow mute criticism of their current abuses?

But if I take a more long-term look at the two countries, and the trends they are showing, I'd argue that the latter country is the one that deserves stronger criticism and concern [than China].

READ this. Don't just project your own interpretations on it. I am not talking about the existence, or lack thereof, of human rights abuses. What I am discussing is our reaction to those abuses, what is the best way to accomplish positive, enduring change for the Chinese people.

It seems to me that you are the one projecting your own interpretations. Criticism IS a reaction to abuses. So I am discussing our REACTION to the abuses, not the EXISTENCE of those abuses.

I've already listed examples of how Chinese people have been hurt (not helped) by outsiders who have "good intentions", but who don't really understand a damn thing about what they're actually doing.

No, you've presented one example of how leftist ideas, in general, can harm people, and another example of the CHINESE GOVERNMENT hurting Chinese people.

I'm not talking about not criticizing the gov't, or ignoring their abuses.

Then why go to the trouble of creating a hypothetical country that you clearly intend to represent the US, and one you clearly intend to represent China, and then declare that the former deserves more criticism?

You seem to be one of those "black-and-white", people...the "you're either with us, or against us" type.

You seem to be the "I've already decided what the response to my comments will be, and I'm going to interpret the responses according to that mindset" type.

And yeah, I know this response is gonna' come across as rather arrogant and 'holier-than-thou'. But quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing Chinese people sacrificed at the altar of political correctness (reference my first post, and the examples I gave).

It's not political correctness, it's morality.

We hear all the time about how the Chinese gov't hurts the Chinese people; I seek to show how ignorant actions, made without understanding China, hurt the Chinese just as much.

Then you shouldn't have picked an example that shows the opposite.

Only that if you don't actually understand the situation, then "caution is the better part of valor" might be good advice for you;

The usual quote is "Discretion is the better part of valor".

 

[The Atheist]

And it is still continuing for one simple reason: face. Having declared it as evil, they cannot turn around and say its not evil, without admitting they were wrong, and thereby losing face.

Yet you don't think an organisation which puts that before international condemnation and the lives of its citizens should be considered evil itself.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And it is still continuing for one simple reason: face. Having declared it as evil, they cannot turn around and say its not evil, without admitting they were wrong, and thereby losing face.

Loathe as I am to challenge your authority on this, I have a suspicion there may be more than face to this. As some already mentiond, there can be several rethorical ways out of such a problem. Unfortunately, there could also be an aspect of diverting attention. It is an old and well-known tactics to divert attention from various issues by appointing some alleged enemy and persecuting said enemy with great vigor. In the case of China and Falun Gong, it even serves a purpose of diverting foreign attention to other human rights abuses, which can be useful, since the actual sympathy with a generally weird (if harmless) religious sect will be limited. While Westeners can agree to denounce the persecution of Falun Gong, few of us actually feel any identification with them.



Hans