bub

1) well why would they boycott? I don't see a good reason to boycott France, it's not a nazi country as they said
2) well you are right, it may not be a "dictatorship", the good word would rather be "authoritarian" (or at least not a democracy at all), don't you agree?
3) As for the execution, 80 of the people executed in the world are executed in China, which is totally disproportionate with its population. But more importantly, we should see why they are executed. If it's for murder or rapes, I may agree, but I've got the feeling that they also execute those who disagree with the government
4) OK for freedom of speech, I should have said "with censorship"
5) My country (but it was quite recent, 1830)

__________________
===|:-)

jfuh

French have been calling for boycott of Chinese goods, of the Olympics hosted in China and has supported tearing apart China - I don't see the problem with Chinese returning the favor.

No disagreement whatsoever.

I can't say that I know of the later today. Yesterday absolutely, today it's quite different. There are lots of protests in China today - if it wasn't that I saw it for my own eyes I wouldn't have believed it either - huge banners accusing governmental corruption stretched across the entire wall of a building in plain view. The police on the street don't even flinch.
Murderers rapists all executed.
I actually do have a problem even with that because of governmental protection too often they just grab an average joe off the street so that the prosecutor can report "swift justice" as some kind of validation of job effectiveness and competence. Kinda like the US only to be embarrased later with DNA evidence saying the exact opposite of "eye witnesses".

I have to admit I wasn't being entirely honest. They have free speech but no right to free speech. But as for censorship - you'd be surprised. If you could read Chinese I suggest you go onto any Chinese hosted internet forum, you would be surprised.
Example: ÎÄѧ³Ç www.wenxuecity.com

Everyone had the same equal rights from the very begining? I reserve doubts on that.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Cataclysmic 7.9 earthquake in China, how to donate to the relief fund.

aegyptos

Yes, of course its thugism. That the Olympic Committee would even consider China for the games is a disgrace just as the Nazi games and the Moscow games were disgraces. The Olympic Committee long ago lost what little credibility it had and the games are now simply overly expensive exercises in consumerism and nationalism for the elite. I certainly won't be watching any of it.

__________________
Report this post!

bub

Well in France it was some citizens who called for boycott, while in China it was organized by the government.



Yes it seems that there have been big progresses in China recently, but according to many organizations (Amnesty...) it's not enough

as for your forum, I can read some kanjis (国 "country", "man" "south" "north"...) but I don't think I'd even be able to create an account

Constitution of Belgium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infinite Chaos

If you read my post again you will see that I'm not calling the Honk Kong Chinese (on Chinese soil) traitors - it's the pro-Beijing Chinese on Chinese soil calling other Chinese protesters the traitors.

But she would have that right....

Will we see Chinese pro-Tibet protests on Chinese soil? (And I don't mean the Tibetans complaining on Chinese soil - I mean Han Chinese.)

jfuh

This is complete and utter bull****. I challenge you to show me where the Chinese government organized this event? And then on top of that explain to me why it is that the government then sent police to crack down on the protesters to prevent them from protesting and boycotting.
Source

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the west only looks on china through what they care to perceive it as and not what it actually is. They're protesting against french goods, oh it couldn't possibly be because Chinese are pissed off it has to be that the government is organizing it.

I don't really read too much on that forum actually, it's good for some interesting internal things on Mainland China but I'm **** with simplified Chinese
I agree there still needs to be significant strides in progress for China but it needs to be in moderation. I do not wish to see China collapse like the USSR because of simultaneous economic and political reforms. One step at a time Rome was not built overnight.

I can not say I know too much about Belgium so help me out here. But from the wiki article it seems to suggest that the monarchy and aristocracy still nevertheless retained special privileges that the common man did not - an injustice so to speak.

jfuh

perhaps they don't care to. Hong Kong is a very different animal from the rest of china.

AsIseeIt

I knew you were not calling the Hong Kong Chinese (on Chinese soil) traitors in your previous post. In fact, I had taken note of your earlier statements: "There are some Chinese who protest the Tibetan cause and they are labelled 'Democracy protesters'. The pro-Beijing Chinese called the protesters 'traitors'."

In my previous post, I was actually commenting on the news report in Olympic torch returns to Chinese soil for Hong Kong relay Excerpts of the news report follow:

(Begin excerpts)
"Supporters of the relay in Hong Kong far outnumbered the protesters, some of whom had to seek protection from police. About 3,000 officers had been deployed to stand guard over the eight-hour relay.

Several activists carrying a banner that read, "Return power to the people," willingly sought refuge in a police vehicle when their pro-democracy slogans were overwhelmed with taunts such as "traitor" and "get out!" from a much larger pro-China crowd.

One young woman carrying a Tibetan flag was bustled into a police van after a crowd of about 30 people shouted obscenities at her, pushing and shoving police officers who had surrounded the university student to provide protection.

"What right do they have to take me away? I have a right to express my opinion," Christina Chan, 21, said of the police. (End excerpts)

To clarify my stand, I rewrite part of my previous post with additional words and changes in square brackets:

"It would be inappropriate [for the pro-China crowd] to label Hong Kong's Chinese activists as "traitors" for carrying a pro-democracy banner that read, "Return power to the people". [In my opinion], it would be provocative and adding insult to injury for somebody, especially a Chinese citizen, [to support Tibetan separatism by protesting with a Tibetan flag which is officially banned because it is a symbol of Tibetan separatism] on Chinese soil."

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

jfuh

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.

bub

To be honest, yes, it has been written in the constitution (since 1831) that all men are equals etc...but on the other hand there were still inequalities:

1) Military duty was compulsory: 1 male/family had to do it. But if you paid a certain sum of money you were allowed not to do it = rich people could avoid military duty.

2) Until around 1880 only people who payed the "cens" (special tax for rich citizen who owned land) could vote = there were only 40,000 voters in a country which had 4,000,000 inhabitants. Then everybody could vote, but those who were over 30 and had kids had 2 votes, and those who had a diploma had 3 votes. It wasn't written in any law that women could not vote, but they didn't do it until 1948 (that's extremely late I know) (but we had a female senator in 1921!)

So, according to the constitution there was no inequality, but in fact rich people had several advantages. That's off topic so I won't say more about this, but if you want me to do so I'll be pleased to do it in the history subforum