Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng

2

Comments

  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,029
    edited May 2012
    Byrnzie wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:

    Maybe you should meet him at the airport and ask him if he's ever mistreated any animlas?
    Why would you post that comment??

    Just teasing. :P
    Oh, okay. I thought you were being passive aggressive! ... and still do.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,029
    Getting closer to a passport...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18099656
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • fife
    fife Posts: 3,327
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    Getting closer to a passport...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18099656

    Am I the only one who doesn't really think this is going to happen?

    I can see something like some paperwork gone missing
  • ONCE DEVIDED
    ONCE DEVIDED Posts: 1,131
    When the US isn't violating anyone's rights their president may have the moral authority to brow beat another nation.
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • fife
    fife Posts: 3,327
    ONCE DEVIDED wrote:
    When the US isn't violating anyone's rights their president may have the moral authority to brow beat another nation.

    Can the same be said about every country?
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    Here’s my problem with this case. No one speaks of the US policy known as the Mexico City Policy also known as, the Global Gag Rule.

    I applaud Chen’s efforts, however, Chen’s not fighting China’s policy, he’s fighting a US imposed policy that undermines China’s family planning policy along with other countries around the world.

    The Mexico City Policy was first imposed by the Reagan administration at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City. It was rescinded in 1993 by President Clinton, reinstated in 2001 by President George W. Bush, and once again rescinded by President Obama in 2009.

    As part of the State Department’s 2013 fiscal budget, Congress reinstated the Global Gag Rule which is administered by USAID – see the implication.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,029
    ONCE DEVIDED wrote:
    When the US isn't violating anyone's rights their president may have the moral authority to brow beat another nation.
    :fp: Obama isn't brow beating anyone in this case. Please get your facts before making such comments.
    Also, that is a terrible attitude, even though no one's brow beating in this situation (Guangcheng is the one who escaped and went to the US Embassy and asked to leave China for America - American is just accommodating that; not brow beating IMO. Responding to the pleas of a man whose life is in danger, along with his family's, who chose to take refuge on American soil) ... Until America does some shit you want, they shouldn't work towards anything good ever? If every country had that attitude, the whole world would go to shit in about 3 minutes. Furthermore, China needs a bit of brow beating generally - what's going on in other countries is a separate issue.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,029
    puremagic wrote:
    Here’s my problem with this case. No one speaks of the US policy known as the Mexico City Policy also known as, the Global Gag Rule.

    I applaud Chen’s efforts, however, Chen’s not fighting China’s policy, he’s fighting a US imposed policy that undermines China’s family planning policy along with other countries around the world.

    The Mexico City Policy was first imposed by the Reagan administration at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City. It was rescinded in 1993 by President Clinton, reinstated in 2001 by President George W. Bush, and once again rescinded by President Obama in 2009.

    As part of the State Department’s 2013 fiscal budget, Congress reinstated the Global Gag Rule which is administered by USAID – see the implication.
    Is any of that the point? He wants to leave China now because he fears for his family's safety because he spoke against the Chinese government. What his opinions mean to you or what they mean when compared to some policy seem to be neither here nor there...
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    puremagic wrote:
    Here’s my problem with this case. No one speaks of the US policy known as the Mexico City Policy also known as, the Global Gag Rule.

    I applaud Chen’s efforts, however, Chen’s not fighting China’s policy, he’s fighting a US imposed policy that undermines China’s family planning policy along with other countries around the world.

    The Mexico City Policy was first imposed by the Reagan administration at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City. It was rescinded in 1993 by President Clinton, reinstated in 2001 by President George W. Bush, and once again rescinded by President Obama in 2009.

    As part of the State Department’s 2013 fiscal budget, Congress reinstated the Global Gag Rule which is administered by USAID – see the implication.
    Is any of that the point? He wants to leave China now because he fears for his family's safety because he spoke against the Chinese government. What his opinions mean to you or what they mean when compared to some policy seem to be neither here nor there...

    He should have thought about that shit beforehand. Do you think Chen did not know that his life and that of his family would be in danger the moment he became a political activist and started speaking out against China’s family planning policy?

    Your damn right it’s on point because it’s all about politics. You seem to forget how China’s human right policy always finds its way into any discussion of US/China relationships; yet, it always gets downplayed. Well there’s the reason why, the Mexico City Policy and whether you think it’s a factor or not - it’s a political reality. Here’s another political reality, China retained most-favorite-nation trade status even during and after the Tiananmen Square incident, with no human rights strings attached.

    Chen and his family may get to leave China, but what started out as a political coup for the US has cost the U.S. some major negotiating points, now that Chen wants to leave with his family which would be in China’s best interest.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,029
    puremagic wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    puremagic wrote:
    Here’s my problem with this case. No one speaks of the US policy known as the Mexico City Policy also known as, the Global Gag Rule.

    I applaud Chen’s efforts, however, Chen’s not fighting China’s policy, he’s fighting a US imposed policy that undermines China’s family planning policy along with other countries around the world.

    The Mexico City Policy was first imposed by the Reagan administration at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City. It was rescinded in 1993 by President Clinton, reinstated in 2001 by President George W. Bush, and once again rescinded by President Obama in 2009.

    As part of the State Department’s 2013 fiscal budget, Congress reinstated the Global Gag Rule which is administered by USAID – see the implication.
    Is any of that the point? He wants to leave China now because he fears for his family's safety because he spoke against the Chinese government. What his opinions mean to you or what they mean when compared to some policy seem to be neither here nor there...

    He should have thought about that shit beforehand. Do you think Chen did not know that his life and that of his family would be in danger the moment he became a political activist and started speaking out against China’s family planning policy?

    Your damn right it’s on point because it’s all about politics. You seem to forget how China’s human right policy always finds its way into any discussion of US/China relationships; yet, it always gets downplayed. Well there’s the reason why, the Mexico City Policy and whether you think it’s a factor or not - it’s a political reality. Here’s another political reality, China retained most-favorite-nation trade status even during and after the Tiananmen Square incident, with no human rights strings attached.

    Chen and his family may get to leave China, but what started out as a political coup for the US has cost the U.S. some major negotiating points, now that Chen wants to leave with his family which would be in China’s best interest.
    Oh pooh. China isn't going to risk losing a single penny from the US due to diplomatic issues. China likes to throw little tantrums about this stuff, but they won't risk anything economically in the long run, which means that it's no skin off the US's back in the end. China knows that the US is still the most powerful country in the world, and the US isn't going to lose that hand just because of one dissident who sought refuge in their embassy.

    And yes, of course Guangcheng thought of that shit beforehand. Some people in this world risk everything to fight for what is right. it's an admirable thing and we should admire it, and encourage it in the world where injustices are common place. That doesn't mean he shouldn't try to protect his life and his family's when they're threatened by a government that kills people just to shut them up. Fuck that! I think it's just plain crass not to support dissidents against the Chinese government.... I also actually think that the West should impose trade embargoes against China until they straighten up, but, of course, the US also cares about money first and foremost. With both parties having the same attitude where it "matters", things will continue on as usual as far as trade negotiations go, aside from a little huffing and puffing from China to save face... I mean, what else are they going to do? Support North Korea? Supply weapons to dangerous nations? ... Oh wait. They already do all that no matter how smooth things are between them and the US at any given time!
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • ONCE DEVIDED
    ONCE DEVIDED Posts: 1,131
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    ONCE DEVIDED wrote:
    When the US isn't violating anyone's rights their president may have the moral authority to brow beat another nation.
    :fp: Obama isn't brow beating anyone in this case. Please get your facts before making such comments.
    Also, that is a terrible attitude, even though no one's brow beating in this situation (Guangcheng is the one who escaped and went to the US Embassy and asked to leave China for America - American is just accommodating that; not brow beating IMO. Responding to the pleas of a man whose life is in danger, along with his family's, who chose to take refuge on American soil) ... Until America does some shit you want, they shouldn't work towards anything good ever? If every country had that attitude, the whole world would go to shit in about 3 minutes. Furthermore, China needs a bit of brow beating generally - what's going on in other countries is a separate issue.


    here is the original post that i was responding to
    "I think Obama shouldcome out in support of this activist. He has been tight lipped so far. I hope Chen is able to leave China along with his family to the U.S"

    At no stage did i state obaba said anything
    im responding to the people asking their president to stand up for human rights abuses in china when the USA government is violating human rights itself. simple

    PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS BEFORE MAKING COMMENTS

    im sick of the USA, United kingdom etc and my own nation Australia thinking they have some moral superiority over other nations, we should get our shit together and maybe people would listen to us if we were not so far up our own arses
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,029
    He's left China and is on his way to the US. :clap:

    http://www.jpost.com/International/Arti ... ?id=270601

    And China hasn't declared war or anything! :roll:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    what else are they going to do? Supply weapons to dangerous nations? ... Oh wait. They already do all that

    And the U.S doesn't?
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,029
    Byrnzie wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    what else are they going to do? Supply weapons to dangerous nations? ... Oh wait. They already do all that

    And the U.S doesn't?
    I dunno... which dangerous nations is the US sending weapons to right now? Israel (dangerous nation depending on what side of that stupid conflict you're siding with... I think both sides are equally stupid so cancel each other out).

    (Also, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm actually talking about China here. I don't understand why people think there is any value in these kinds of comments in this thread... I find any point like this totally irrelevant to the topic. If you want to discuss whatever wrongs the US is committing why don't you start your own thread? Just because one nation is committing wrong doesn't mean it's okay for another to, and doesn't mean it isn't still good for that nation to stop wrong doings when it can..... when I hear about China stepping in to stop injustices and speak against rights violations somewhere, I'll applaud them too, even if it doesn't negate other things China may be doing. It's not a black and white, all or nothing world, and good should be committed and acknowledged on its own merit).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    what else are they going to do? Supply weapons to dangerous nations? ... Oh wait. They already do all that

    And the U.S doesn't?
    I dunno... which dangerous nations is the US sending weapons to right now? Israel (dangerous nation depending on what side of that stupid conflict you're siding with... I think both sides are equally stupid so cancel each other out).

    Nah, it has nothing to do with what side of the conflict you side with. Israel has a long history of attacking it's neighbours and deliberately targeting civilians, and the U.S supplies it with billions of dollars worth of weapons every year, along with countries such as Bahrain, Turkey, Indonesia, Columbia, and Egypt, where U.S-supplied weapons have also been used on civilians.
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    I'm actually talking about China here. I don't understand why people think there is any value in these kinds of comments in this thread... I find any point like this totally irrelevant to the topic.

    Of course you do. These kinds of comments cause that moral high-horse you're perched on to start wobbling.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Copied this from a website in China as I think he raises some good points:


    'He’s gotten incredible play in the media because it suits US values and ideals and also happens to fit the agendas and self-interest of a variety of groups. Some are actually calling him “pro life,” which to me is hilarious and shows a selfish desire to co-opt his status and anything he’s done for their own purposes. Republicans were looking to vilify the administration for being too weak on China, and hence the situation needed to be portrayed in a one-dimensional way. With that in mind, the administration was pressured to show they were not sympathizing with the commie bastard abusers.

    My point is not that this guy is not a hero and didn’t do something courageous. I agree he has Balls and compassion and has suffered greatly because of it. However, for a variety of reasons, such situations in my opinion are not as simple as they are portrayed. For one, many people reading this stuff don’t appreciate the difference between local and central leadership, and this is used by the US government and various groups to foster a certain view toward China and ourselves. Second, in a similar way, nothing good is EVER said about the positive results of the family planning policies, even as politicians and pundits hammer away on China for having policies that are in fact made necessary by its enormous and breathtakingly poor population. If outsiders really cared about China’s people, as opposed to simply using such sentiments as a tool, we would be having a debate about such issues instead of just using the occasional flap for our own purposes. In reality, I think most people don’t care that much, but some would like to hear a sensational story about a hero.

    Even with all this, many US people are not giving him a hero’s welcome. Go on Yahoo and find these stories (featured over the past few days) and look at the comments. When I looked, almost all of the comments were to the effect of: Who is paying for this guy’s flight? Will he be eligible for welfare because he’s blind? How can he study in the US if he doesn’t speak English? Obviously this will vary from site to site, but you will find some of the same even over at the nytimes.'
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,029
    Byrnzie wrote:
    PJ_Soul wrote:

    Nah, it has nothing to do with what side of the conflict you side with. Israel has a long history of attacking it's neighbours and deliberately targeting civilians, and the U.S supplies it with billions of dollars worth of weapons every year, along with countries such as Bahrain, Turkey, Indonesia, Columbia, and Egypt, where U.S-supplied weapons have also been used on civilians.
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    I'm actually talking about China here. I don't understand why people think there is any value in these kinds of comments in this thread... I find any point like this totally irrelevant to the topic.

    Of course you do. These kinds of comments cause that moral high-horse you're perched on to start wobbling.
    I support what's right. I don't care who is committing the deeds. I have a moral compass (a very stable one, thanks), that directs me to admire those who stand up for what is right according to what I think is right. You can't fault me for that. It has nothing to do with what nation happened to be involved. If you think being in the same court philosophically as a man who risked himself to fight against forced abortion and sterilization, or siding with the political support of persecuted dissidents in totalitarian countries is being on a moral high horse, then I'm happy to be on it! I am more than comfortable with my thoughts on what is just in the world, and Guangcheng not being punished for standing up fir what he believes in is just. And I am in support of an group o who allows that to happen. In this case, it was done with the help of the US government,aand I'm glad they supported this particular cause.

    Look buddy, I don't know what your problem is but would appreciate it if you quit making random wild assumptions about where I stand morally. Guess what, you and I have access to the same facts. I am in support of this man and of ensuring the freedom of speech for all and that is why I'm interested I this story. I'm a Canadian and k.ow full well what the US's role is in the world. It's a big topic in my country. I'm happy to hear when dissdents escape persecution. Honestly, you're the one on a high horse, and you also cone off as plain silly when you preached about China offering more freedom than north America, lol. That was a long time ago when you said that, and you have held no credibility for me since. In fact, I don't even know wtf you're talking about in the context of anything I've said. No clue what this moral high horse is supposed to be, or bow you think what I've said at any point puts me generally on side with overall American foreign policy (as an incredibly left-wibg thinker, I'm totally not). In fact, I'm starting to wonder if you're having a some sort of imaginary debate here...
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • ONCE DEVIDED
    ONCE DEVIDED Posts: 1,131
    chinese population 1,300,000,000 in 2012

    thats enough for me to congratulate the chinese government in restricting the spiraling into the abyss of over populating our world

    sure it brings its own problems ie abortion and abandoning of girl babies. but with such a massive poulation already china needed to do somthing
    a guy argued the case, was jailed
    sorry human right to overpopulate
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    PJ_Soul wrote:
    and you also cone off as plain silly when you preached about China offering more freedom than north America, lol.

    I didn't say China offered more freedom than North America. I said that people here have more personal freedom than they do in the West. It's clear that you don't understand the difference between personal freedom and political freedom, but that's not my fault.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 51,029
    ONCE DEVIDED wrote:
    chinese population 1,300,000,000 in 2012

    thats enough for me to congratulate the chinese government in restricting the spiraling into the abyss of over populating our world

    sure it brings its own problems ie abortion and abandoning of girl babies. but with such a massive poulation already china needed to do somthing
    a guy argued the case, was jailed
    sorry human right to overpopulate
    For sure, don't gwtme wrong, the population crisis is awful and I support the one child rule (I I think it should be enforced in rural areas too). But enforcement should NOT include forced abortions and forced sterilizations
    That's totally fucked up. I mean, women being literally dragged kicking and screaming onto a table and having their babies ripped out of them? Sorry... seems like a reasonable thing to protest. I'm strongly pro choice, so no way am I about to support that. There are other ways to work towards population reductipn. In my opinion.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata

Categories