Quote:
Originally Posted by AsIseeIt  Your support for my imaginary American Al Qaeda girl's right of protest is incredible. Your stand on her right of protest is so unreal that you seem to join her in celebrating Al Qaeda's successful attacks on America on September 11, 2001. Lest you have forgotten the many victims who jumped from windows on elevated storeys of the towers to escape the flames, just before the towers collapsed, please take a look at the Falling Man in The Falling Man - Esquire
Thousands were feared dead after a series of devastating attacks targeting the USA's financial and military centres in New York and Washington. An hour after the planes struck New York's highest building, a third explosion brought the south tower of the World Trade Centre crashing to the ground.
A witness said he saw bodies falling from the towers and people jumping out. Minutes later, the building's north tower also collapsed. Please read the terrifying account in Terrorists strike at heart of US | World news | guardian.co.uk |
Actually it's not so incredible. The right to free speech or the right to protest means just that, it's a right. No matter what a person's viewpoint is, they are free to protest and speak out as they wish to without governmental interference. That is not to say that protesting or speaking out will not have serious consequences. No country I know of protects hate speech as free speech.
Here's the issue at point though, the PRC does not protect free speech, nor does it have a right to protest. The PRC should be so but it's not as of present. So it's a moot point to even bring up. Another nations laws are not every nations laws.
In Saudi Arabia by law women simply don't have rights, does that mean other nations should share that law? Frack no. To which that is the problem at point here, a nation's domestic affairs are of no concern to any other nation. Just like it is no other nation's right to impeach the US president and vice versa.