Olympic Torch Relay

[Mao]

The case is the same in Australia. If the aborigines hypothetically wanted their own free country in a chunk of Australia, giving it to them would quell all the possible riots. And if that doesn't work, they could plunk their on country on top of Australia.

exactly

do you think that Australian federal govt should give up lands to the Indigenous population, and accept the economic consequeces? moreso, if you were asked to leave your house and find somewhere else to live, would you happily comply because its a respect to the aboriginal's rights?

tibet is at the moment more than 50% Han by population, and their economy is booming. the consequences of China just pulling out can be quite unimaginable. tibet will struggle to survive when china cease trade (or impose crazy tariffs), it will be impossible to become independant unless another nation(s) decide to support tibet financially, and that usually also mean that China will cease/reduce trade with that country. being the largest and cheapest exporting economy, i doubt any country would risk their economy on a cringe for human rights with little consideration for cultural and historical context.

[excal]

I direct this at you Mao, seeing as you seem to be a staunch supporter of China's policies.

Any country that suppresses free speech is a big no-no in my books. As is *another thing*...but that's another matter altogether. To prosecute and arrest people for telling the true story behind the firewall puts you in jail. All for 'national security (and) social stability' (1). And what about Falun Gong? It matters not what people believe in, they should be able to believe in it freely.

Consider Hu Jia, jailed for 3 years for 'subverting state authority'.

"The charges relate to interviews he gave to foreign media and political articles that he wrote for the internet" (2)

"Using his webcam, Hu participated in a European parliamentary hearing in Brussels on 26 November on the human rights situation in China. He said at one point during the hearing: “It is ironic that one of the people in charge of organising the Olympic Games is the head of the Bureau of Public Security, which is responsible for so many human rights violations. It is very serious that the official promises are not being kept before the games.” (3) In this, he was accepting a Free Speech award from the Foundation de France.

And worst of all, he's not allowed to see his layer. (4)

Why aren't people allowed to talk about Tiananmen Square? Why was the press blacked out at the incident? Why does China need the Great Firewall if it didn't have things to hide? Or want hidden?

Why can't people speak or report freely?

I could probably write a thesis on all the suppression of free speech occurs in China, one among many other nations, as the amount of violations are staggering. I haven't even dug into the human rights abuses (which, funnily enough, stem from suppression of criticism by the PRC government). Keeping this model of government up simply is terrible for the long term. For long-term prosperity, laissiez-faire captialism has proven (ironically, in a Chinese territory - Hong Kong) that it works. For capitalism to work, you need democracy. For democracy, you need to dismantle the suppression of free speech and effectively the socialist model that China currently runs with.

/rant

Now I'll come back to the issue at hand, Tibet. China should allow the culture that is Tibet determine for themselves whether they want independence - you must remember that China did invade Tibet in 1950. If East Timor is any precedent (invaded by Indonesia in 1974), self-determinism should apply. In response to your argument of economic-screwedness; if the people choose to separate from China and then end up in shit creek, don't you think they'll be screaming to have China back and be happy about being not independent? If it works, wouldn't they be happy about being well off (and independent)?

And I'm sure plenty of NGOs and Governments will lend Tibet a hand.

(1) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/02/china_text_snoop/
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7302057.stm
(3) http://committeetoprotectbloggers.org/2007/12/30/chinese-blogger-hu-jia-arrested/
(4) See above, n 3.

[excal]

Opinion articles about this tibetan ordeal:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/first-rule-of-empire-dominate/2008/04/08/1207420388179.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-boycott-will-endanger-a-peaceful-solution-for-tibet/2008/04/08/1207420388182.html

http://business.theage.com.au/western-media-miss-the-real-tibet-story/20080408-24nz.html

the media has done a great job at muddling up the whole thing again. they say, "if you throw enough mud, some will stick". That is what i think is happening now.

China is no longer the communist state it once was, though its human rights might be a little off what UN thinks. The way the world sees China needs to renew itself.

From my point of view, it is unfair to pass judgement on domestic unrest when the government did not cause it.

The Chinese media has a habit of doing this too.

"Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee"

Wow, what a mouthful.

[Collin Li]

Everyone knows China has committed human rights atrocities, but I don't think a boycott will achieve the objective. In fact, it could harm our objective by forcing China to isolate themselves in a communist tyranny. We should not declare embargoes and stop talking with nations that do not share our love of freedom. Instead, we should talk with them and negotiate and facilitate diplomatic agreements among other parties.

[Collin Li]

I direct this at you Mao, seeing as you seem to be a staunch supporter of China's policies.

I would be surprised if this was not a straw-man.

If it is, it nullifies the whole "rebuttal."

[Mao]

I direct this at you Mao, seeing as you seem to be a staunch supporter of China's policies.

I would be surprised if this was not a straw-man.

If it is, it nullifies the whole "rebuttal."

quite sadly, it is

i am not supporting china, but i am of the opinion that the least harmful way is by letting china handle it. It is arrogant and ignorant for another person to suggest what another country should do, and especially so to pass judgement when such a crisis is at hand. That aside, china pulling out of tibet will have serious global political implications, domestic political implications, serious economical impact (in tibet), etc. and pushing for this freedom (boycotting the games) is even worse, as china will likely tighten the control of the "autonomous" states, furtherly breaching human rights, and developments in allowing freedom of speech will go backwards.

but excalibur:
your arguments seemed to be based on

Any country that suppresses free speech is a big no-no in my books. As is *another thing*...but that's another matter altogether. To prosecute and arrest people for telling the true story behind the firewall puts you in jail. All for 'national security (and) social stability' (1). And what about Falun Gong? It matters not what people believe in, they should be able to believe in it freely.

in a philosopher's books, that is a huge assumption to make, freedom of speech is only granted if the society accepts it. China seemed to have survived the last 2,000 years without it, it has never been assumed, and the western world is trying to impose it on us. not that its a bad thing, but give time for China to adapt. (comparing our freedom of speech now to 20 years ago, there is a vast difference).

and do keep in mind that china is a fragile balance. we have over 52 races (all asian-chinese). if tight social control is not excercised.... well...
luckily enough, the controls are adaquate in my eyes, and it takes a lot of effort to destabilize this system, plus education at the moment is trying to overcome this problem for the future. it is a valid issue in china, but not to the extent where the entire country is at "unrest"

as for Falun Gong, that is quite stupid. I dont disagree with the religion, in my opinion it is quite good to sit down for a couple hours everyday to calmly meditate. however, the non-religious aspects of it is quite extraordinary. believers (there were quite few in numbers) recieve imperatives from the so called "priests" to publicly suicide, usually by ingesting and soaking in petrol then light yourself on fire. that is inhumane on ANY standards. to do that in the capitol city in broad daylight is quite upsetting. other cases includes rammaging through a building with a sword killing people, then when the police comes, kill themselves.
that, in my opinion, is synonymous to scientology, only in the extreme, where the practioner is no longer "distancing" from the family, but suicides.
oh, and, there were bullcrap medicines (the chinese herbal medicine balls) which practioners have to take, and they costed HEAPS

[excal]

I direct this at you Mao, seeing as you seem to be a staunch supporter of China's policies.

I would be surprised if this was not a straw-man.

If it is, it nullifies the whole "rebuttal."

It's not quite a rebuttal, but a direction of comment / rant.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot accept anything but freedom for citizens to speak. If 'freedom of speech' is considered such a bad thing in China, why don't people self-censor? And, for the record, I do not say that the 'chilling effect' of arrests and imprisonment counts as self-censorship as it is not without duress.

China may have lasted the last 2,000 years without free speech, as you say. Just look at where it is development wise compared to the (relatively) short histories of liberal democracies such as Australia and the USA (yes, I know it's an economic generalisation - but democracy lays the foundations for laissez-faire capitialism).

and do keep in mind that china is a fragile balance. we have over 52 races (all asian-chinese). if tight social control is not excercised.... well...

What about Australia?

as for Falun Gong, that is quite stupid. I dont disagree with the religion, in my opinion it is quite good to sit down for a couple hours everyday to calmly meditate. however, the non-religious aspects of it is quite extraordinary....

A point I agree on. However, those practicing it peacefully without doing those things that you state should not be persecuted as well. Most extremist religion is going to lead to some kind of sectarian violence, and it is this I'm against. I say, practice what you want, but don't hurt other peoples' civil liberties. The people protesting Scientology at the moment are protesting for the same reasons; not the peaceful beliefs they harbour (as wacky as they are, I do believe they aren't protesting the Free Zone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29).

Mind you, there ain't much liberty in China to infringe on anyway.

i am not supporting china, but i am of the opinion that the least harmful way is by letting china handle it.

Assumption made from tone of previous posts; I'll retract my previous statements on that.
 
If people want to boycott the games because of their personal beliefs, they should be allowed to. If people want to get others in on it (without physically co-ercing them, of course), they should be allowed to. Government ought not to restrict free speech, as long as it doesn't infringe any other person's right to free speech - even in the name of the 'Olympics'. This is also known as liberty.

And:

That aside, china pulling out of tibet will have serious global political implications, domestic political implications, serious economical impact (in tibet)

I think most people would be glad (in the world that is, I can't speak for China interally) to close the book on a chapter of unrest. If the people of Tibet make the choice to be indepedent, and make a mess of it, they will reap what they have sown. Like I say, they would be happy to put themselves back in the control of China if it got that bad. Win-win.

You can't justify invading another country 'because I want to make your country better' like China did. As did the USA with Afghanistan and Iraq (which, for the record, I'm against). At least they returned the country to the people (even in the dilapated state both countries are in).