Home > Letters > "Down with the Dalai Lama" – Western criticism

"Down with the Dalai Lama" – Western criticism

Well, we are a little behind the curve here at Fool’s Mountain. An article titled “Down with the Dalai Lama” was published* by the Guardian a few weeks ago, and I was completely ignorant of it until the Chinese translation began to be passed around. (*Was it actually published in print, or is it only available online?)

Here are a few choice snippets from that article:

The Dalai Lama says he wants Tibetan autonomy and political independence. Yet he allows himself to be used as a tool by western powers keen to humiliate China. Between the late 1950s and 1974, he is alleged to have received around $15,000 a month, or $180,000 a year, from the CIA. He has also been, according to the same reporter, “remarkably nepotistic”, promoting his brothers and their wives to positions of extraordinary power in his fiefdom-in-exile in Dharamsala, northern India.

He poses as the quirky, giggly, modern monk who once auctioned his Land Rover on eBay for $80,000 and has even done an advert for Apple (quite what skinny white computers have got to do with Buddhism is anybody’s guess). Yet in truth he is a product of the crushing feudalism of archaic, pre-modern Tibet, where an elite of Buddhist monks treated the masses as serfs and ruthlessly punished them if they stepped out of line.

The Dalai Lama demands religious freedom. Yet he persecutes a Buddhist sect that worships a deity called Dorje Shugden.

As the Dalai Lama tours Britain, lots of people are asking: why won’t Brown receive him at Downing Street? I have a different question: why should Brown, who for all his troubles is still the head of an elected political party, meet with an authoritarian, fame-chasing, Apple-loving monk?

The Guardian column links to a related editorial (“Behind Dalai Lama’s holy cloak”) from The Age (Australia), dating all the way back to 2007:

Rarely do journalists challenge the Dalai Lama.

Partly it is because he is so charming and engaging. Most published accounts of him breeze on as airily as the subject, for whom a good giggle and a quaint parable are substitutes for hard answers. But this is the man who advocates greater autonomy for millions of people who are currently Chinese citizens, presumably with him as head of their government. So, why not hold him accountable as a political figure?

No mere spiritual leader, he was the head of Tibet’s government when he went into exile in 1959. It was a state apparatus run by aristocratic, nepotistic monks that collected taxes, jailed and tortured dissenters and engaged in all the usual political intrigues.

The government set up in exile in India and, at least until the 1970s, received $US1.7 million a year from the CIA…. The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA’s payroll from the late 1950s until 1974, reportedly receiving $US15,000 a month ($US180,000 a year).

Like many Asian politicians, the Dalai Lama has been remarkably nepotistic, appointing members of his family to many positions of prominence. In recent years, three of the six members of the Kashag, or cabinet, the highest executive branch of the Tibetan government-in-exile, have been close relatives of the Dalai Lama.

He has kept Tibet on the front pages around the world, but to what end? The main achievement seems to have been to become a celebrity. Possibly, had he stayed quiet, fewer Tibetans might have been tortured, killed and generally suppressed by China.

I don’t think anything new is being introduced here, although it’s certainly refreshing to see a cynical spotlight on the Dalai Lama. If there’s one message from these editorials that I really hope sticks to the Western consciousness, is that the Dalai Lama’s role as a politician should be separated from that of the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader. If George Bush happened to be a particularly adorable Methodist preacher, should that change anyone’s views of his political agenda?

Let’s evaluate the Dalai Lama’s political proposals from a political perspective.

Categories: Letters Tags: ,
  1. BMY
    June 19th, 2008 at 03:18 | #1

    I think most of us on this blog ,including anti-commie FOARP ,know the facts the Guardian articles talked about.

    The serf(with political/religion) system in old Tibet chosed Dalai Lama when he was a baby. He wasn’t doing too much administrative duties as a baby and teen. His brothers were chosen as high ranks also by the system when he was young. To blame Lalai on the serf system is not very fair.

    Regardless whether people think he is more a monk, or a politician or a celebrity or a dictator or both, we have to face the reality on the ground. whatever we think it is right or not and whatever we like it or not. Dalai Lama is the the over all leader in TBIE and is also the religion leader seen by big portion of Tibetans if not everyone in Tibetan area in China. Dalai Lama has big audience and has big moral authority in the west.

    As long as the government has to or wants to talk with him, constantly bashing him by government officers and media dose not serve well the goal. I think we need show some respect no matter we like him or not.

  2. Nimrod
    June 19th, 2008 at 03:26 | #2

    Certainly the outdated slogans against him by the government don’t work. Now this kind of article does, thanks to recent events (I would assume). Speaking in terms that your audience understands is half the battle, and China ceded that to the TGIE for no good reason.

  3. Anon
    June 19th, 2008 at 03:27 | #3

    Yawn! “…Dalai Lama’s role as a politician should be separated from that of the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader.” I does seem to take some people a long time to understand that the Tibetans themselves actually want their religious leader to be their secular leader too. It is not because Europe (not to mention China) has implemented a clear separation of church and state that this is the default model in any country – have a look at a lot of Islamic countries. Moreover, using the US as an examples puts you on a very slippery slope, considering the strong influence of the more fundamentalist churches in the politics of that country. Finally, you have (inadvertently?) included the last sentence of the Age report, which summarises the situation in Tibet quite nicely, regardless of the status of the Dalai Lama.

  4. Nimrod
    June 19th, 2008 at 04:32 | #4


    Does it matter? We’re only talking about the court of public opinion, not one that will decide Tibet’s fate. If a theocracy is what Tibetans want (with Dalai Lama at its head), let’s air that: I don’t mind it at all, but the Dalai Lama and his supporters do (from their backpedaling).

  5. S.K. Cheung
    June 19th, 2008 at 05:16 | #5

    THis actually seems in keeping with the natural life-cycle of celebrity figures in western culture. Although a long time in the making, the DL has been in the mainstream spotlight for a shorter period of time; he was certainly not a rock-star in 1959. For the last while, events have thrust him into the focus of the spotlights, and he’s done well to cultivate that appeal. But as with all such figures, eventually there is the airing of the dirty laundry, and the voices of criticism build. It’ll be interesting to see where the equilibrium of western opinion will ultimately rest regarding the DL. Clearly, Chinese opinion of him will be of a much different tenor. But in the end that matters not, for if the Chinese want a discussion, he’s their guy, like him or loathe him.

  6. June 19th, 2008 at 08:17 | #6

    @SK Cheung – Even Nelson Mandela is starting to draw criticism for his stance on Zimbabwe nowadays, and everyone forgets about the guerilla campaign he was preparing.

    @Nimrod – I doubt that most of the Tibetans who say that they want the DL as their leader actually understand what a theocracy is, I suspect that most of them would be very happy with democratic autonomy in which the DL had some kind of titular role as ‘defender of the faith’ or what have you.

    @BMY – Agreed.

  7. June 19th, 2008 at 08:17 | #7

    @Buxi – I’m curious – where does the name ‘fools mountain’ come from?

  8. AC
    June 19th, 2008 at 14:12 | #8

    ‘fools mountain’ comes from 愚公移山。

    The Western stereotypes, cliches, misunderstandings, bias and prejudice toward China is the “mountain.”

    Buxi and many of us here who try to move that “mountain” are the “fools.”

  9. Nimrod
    June 19th, 2008 at 16:26 | #9

    FOARP and Anon,

    All right, you guys are good at conflating issues. Is this a “skill”?

    I didn’t say Tibetans don’t want theocracy and I didn’t say Tibetans do want theocracy. I said “if” they want theocracy, then etc. etc. etc.

    And while many of us think the DL should not be both a spiritual leader and a secular leader simultaneously, that isn’t what Buxi said either. He made a weaker (logically speaking) proposition that the DL’s two roles should be separately assessed.

  10. June 19th, 2008 at 16:45 | #10

    @AC – All I can say is that mountains never stand alone.

    @Buxi – According to the Guardian’s website it was not in that day’s edition, so it must have been one of their blog posts.

  11. Buxi
    June 19th, 2008 at 17:00 | #11


    I does seem to take some people a long time to understand that the Tibetans themselves actually want their religious leader to be their secular leader too.

    If I’m not going to speak for the “Chinese people” as a single entity, you sure as heck don’t get to speak for the Tibetan people as an entity!

    I don’t even know how many religious Tibetans “want” the Dalai Lama as their secular leader; after all, even before 1950 many Tibetans didn’t “want” the Dalai Lama as their secular leader (see: Shigatse, Amdo/Kham). It’s probably more accurate to say that for most, they don’t really care about secular leadership as much as religious leadership.

    But even if I were to concede (as you seem to suggest) that Tibetans really want a theocracy, so what? Are there any communities in your home country that might express interest in a theocracy? Are you inclined to support them?

    I’m in favor of preserving Tibetan culture and language; I’m in favor of greater religious freedom; I’m in favor of greater affirmative action and economic measures that help Tibetans in China. However, I’m also absolutely, 100% against any sort of theocratic rule in Tibet or any other part of China. The sort of “defender of the faith” solution that FOARP mentions above is acceptable to me, though.

    Finally, you have (inadvertently?) included the last sentence of the Age report, which summarises the situation in Tibet quite nicely, regardless of the status of the Dalai Lama.

    I’m fine with that summary, especially since I read it with a value-neutral eye. There are certainly Tibetans who have been tortured, suppressed, and even killed in China because of the Dalai Lama’s political campaign. As long as the political campaign that the Dalai Lama led for decades continues, then while illegal torture should be stopped, legal suppression should also continue.

  12. Buxi
    June 19th, 2008 at 18:00 | #12

    In the mean time, a renewed separatist movement has broken out amongst Ghorkhas in India. See Reuters report. One of the leaders of the movement threatened to call on all of the Ghorkhas serving in the Indian military to rise up. Any easy solutions to this one?

    I think there is a very great likelihood that India will disintegrate into smaller pieces at some point this century.

  13. Buxi
    June 19th, 2008 at 18:08 | #13

    But in the mean time, Indians on a popular chat-board are busy pondering how/when they will get a chance to fight a war against China in Tibet.

    War inside Tibet – goals, strategies and equipment

    this thread will be meant to discuss how best to deal with the PRC on our long land frontier and include the Nepal factor as well because Nepal is a thin country controlled by Maoists who can pretend to play dead if and when the PRC desires to move through its territory.

    the indian public and Govt has mostly operated on a defensive mentality wrt to PRC, never thinking about taking back what was ours (aksai chin) and always tied up in how best to “defend” the ladakh, sikkim or arunachal – very difficult terrain and with paltry logistics so far.

    the prime GOAL of the next war over Tibet must be to create a new LOC (line of control).

  14. Nimrod
    June 19th, 2008 at 19:43 | #14


    India basically had the three Himalayan south-slope fiefdoms (Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan) as protectorates with India in full control in all but name. We know what happened to Sikkim. Bhutan was able to renegotiate somewhat. Nepal is a bit peeved at the arrangement.

    Hindu nationalists have always seen Tibet as “theirs” more than China’s, maybe on the basis of religion. They think Mapam Yutso (a lake in TAR) belongs to them, for example.
    I’m not too worried about them though. Even if they didn’t learn their lesson decades ago, what are they going to do? China and India are both nuclear states.

  15. yo
    June 19th, 2008 at 20:13 | #15

    India and Tibet?! Well, you learn something new everyday….

  16. yingying
    June 19th, 2008 at 20:47 | #16

    If you care about Tibetans, stop kicking Dalai Lama as a Political football for selfish Political Gains, they have no concern of Tibetans, most do not even know where Tibet is on the map, I had been in Tibet for 4 years working with them and knew people worked with Tibetans in India. If you really care about Tibetans, you should do it constructively. There are so many Tibetans in Europe and USA, open your arms help them. Who actually give jobs to Tibetans?? it is oversea Chinese. My sister’s family friend hired a Tibetans family of three came from India. Mom died where the kids were young, the father took them around Europe, can not survive there, then USA, no one would hire them since they do not any education, speak No English or Chinese, yet the Chinese felt sorry for the family, hired them. Kids said oversea Chinese has been very good to them, most European and American looked down at them, making fun of them, they are learning how to speak Chinese, hoping one day they can return China. Life in India, Europe and USA has been very hard to them, yet Dalai Lama is the most important thing in their life, they will drop everything if he calls, they will die for him. Go to Tibet, go to India to live with Tibetan there for a while, find the real solutions for them as so many other Chinese and non-Chinese have done for so many years, or give money to them, help them catch up with the rest of the world, it is Called “Education” or they will be left behind as many around the world. It is the world “Winner takes All”.

  17. demin
    June 19th, 2008 at 22:59 | #17

    “Even Nelson Mandela is starting to draw criticism for his stance on Zimbabwe nowadays, and everyone forgets about the guerilla campaign he was preparing.”

    If someone uses his nice image as a tool to do (political) business, that image should surely be examined. (At this point I remember the case of that American gay priest,though it’s not a perfectly fitting example here) If you just present yourself as a business man doing business, as a political figure usually does (especially on international stage), then fine, nobody cares what you do out of your business. To use a line from my favorite movie “God Father”:”It’s strictly business,not personal”. (Here I mean revealing DL’s true color)

  18. JL
    June 20th, 2008 at 00:51 | #18

    I seem to have weighed in on all the Tibet threads so far, so I won’t make this one an exception…
    Kudos to the Guardian, the Age and Buxi: diversity of opinions is always good, and especially in this case when it shows that, contrary to what some people claim, the Western media is not engaged in some kind of gigantic conspiracy against China.

    Other than that, I agree with S.K. Cheung. However we might criticize the Dalai Lama (and sure, it’s possible to do so), he does seem to have the support of a lot of Tibetans, so he’s still the one to negotiate with if we would seek dialogue and peace.

    I’m also interested to see that the topic of India has arisen -I checked a map a few weeks ago and was surprised to see just how big the difference is between Chinese, Indian and Western maps are. Buxi; the theme of seperatism and unity pervades Indian history just as it does Chinese history; I personally wouldn’t make any bets regarding either country.

  19. Buxi
    June 20th, 2008 at 05:04 | #19

    I think the Dalai Lama is certainly a politician with some influence, backed by the threat of possible violence… in that sense, not very different from al-Sadr in Iraq, Khaled Mashal of Hamas, Nasralla of Hezbollah.

    It’d certainly “be nice” if a mutually acceptable solution could be worked out, and it sounds like both sides are working in that direction.  Beijing has worked out mutually acceptable solutions with Japan and Taiwan this year without any hint of embarrassment, without showing much concern about the opinion of conservatives.  There’s little doubt in my mind that the current government in Beijing is as progressive and liberal (on foreign policy) as anything we’ve seen in 5 decades… I think by all indications, Beijing will be “reasonable”     when working with the Dalai Lama, so the real question is if there really is any shared common ground between the two sides.

  20. raffiaflower
    June 20th, 2008 at 07:20 | #20

    I was surfing for info about naadi leaves, and found this entry on Shekhar Kapur’s blog, and wanted to post this here. The comments were also interesting.

    “Yesterday the Times of India asked me to comment on the possibility of the Dalai Lama going to the Beijing Olympics and of course, journalism being what it is in India, outrageously misquoted me. I said that the Dalai Lama should go to the Olympic, because if he did, the people of China would embrace His presence and that could start a non confrontational political dialog that could give some kind of autonomy to Tibet. Of course the Times of India misquoted me as saying that his presence at the Olympics would ’embarrass’ the people of China into provoking a dialog. A little bit of difference between embarrass and embrace, wouldn’t you say ? ”

  21. yingying
    June 20th, 2008 at 12:57 | #21

    Please read if you care what happened to Tibet:

  22. June 20th, 2008 at 13:18 | #22


    “al-Sadr in Iraq, Khaled Mashal of Hamas, Nasralla of Hezbollah.”

    Except that he is not the leader of a terrorist armed militia – this is a somewhat bizarre comparison. If there is a suitable comparison, it is that of the Emperor Haile Selassie, a man who ran a backward feudal state and who became something of a white elephant during his sojourn in the west.

  23. Buxi
    June 20th, 2008 at 15:05 | #23

    Except that he is not the leader of a terrorist armed militia

    Note that Hezbollah isn’t recognized by the EU and many other organizations as a terrorist organization. Hamas’s role in terrorism, internationally speak, is also not clear. I’m also not aware of any allegations that al-Sadr’s organization is terrorist.

    I think you mean the Dalai Lama is no longer the leader of an armed militia. I don’t think you mean to dispute that he certainly was, for more than a decade.

  24. Nimrod
    June 21st, 2008 at 06:00 | #24

    FOARP, give up the notion already that there is anything special about the Dalai Lama. Even Yasser Arafat got a Nobel Peace Prize. Doesn’t mean anything.

  25. June 21st, 2008 at 15:21 | #25

    @Nimrod – I never suffered under any such illusion, I just don’t think he is the evil genius that so many Chinese imagine him to be – without ever being able to show any evidence linking him to the riots how can people make such allegations?

  26. demin
    June 21st, 2008 at 16:42 | #26

    “I never suffered under any such illusion, I just don’t think he is the evil genius that so many Chinese imagine him to be – without ever being able to show any evidence linking him to the riots how can people make such allegations?”

    Can you give some evidence showing “many Chinese” believes DL is an evil genius? We are just chanllenging DL’s allegations that he has nothing to do with the violence and testing the chance that he plays a part–directly or indirectly–in the violence, which some evidences shows he does. And in this regard a title of nobel peace prize winner doesn’t mean anything at all, just as  with the case of Arafat. And an additonal indication on this: DL even openly supported India’s nuclear plan, through which he apparrantly wanted to draw some political support from his patron country. Nobel Peace Prize winner? 
    It seems that it is you who has too much imagination about what “many Chinese” thinks.   

  27. Buxi
    June 21st, 2008 at 17:24 | #27


    I described the Dalai Lama as being similar to al-Sadr, and the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah in some ways.  Are you saying those three are all “evil geniuses”, in your mind?  None of them, including the Dalai Lama, are evil geniuses in my mind.
    I think most Chinese aren’t convinced that the Dalai Lama is directly involved in the 3/14 riots.  But his record in fanning the rhetoric and protests after the riots is obvious.  I still haven’t gotten around to blogging about the list of “dead Tibetans” that the government-in-exile published.

  28. June 22nd, 2008 at 08:44 | #28

    @Demin – You cannot ‘allege’ that you didn’t do something, not unless you think that someone is guilty until proven otherwise.

    As for the ‘many Chinese’ believing this – you might have noticed that Xinhua, the Chinese government, and every other pro-Beijing source out there attributed the riots to the ‘Dalai Clique’.

    As for the Nobel peace prize, it is most definitely somewhat debased coinage, I have never made the DL out to be some kind of super pacifist, I would just like to see some – any – proof linking him to the riots.

    @Buxi – Hizbollah, Hamas, and Al-Sadr have all been way more successful than the DL’s rather amateurish organisation. Al-Sadr’s organisation controls most of Basra and Sadr City, Hamas controls the Gaza strip and is moving on the West Bank, Hizbollah is becoming the main power broker in Lebanon and sent the Israelis packing in 2006 – what has the DL acheived in more than forty years of ‘struggle’ except a PR coup? How did Deng Xiaoping describe the invasion of Tibet? “Like a tiger swatting a fly”?

  29. demin
    June 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 | #29

    The legal custom I know is that the burden of proof is on the one who makes charges. Well, now that you have given some proof, that’s fine, fair enough, except it is not much a counterfact to the major argument proposed here.

  30. June 22nd, 2008 at 16:01 | #30

    @Demin – That argument being? The drive of the Guardian piece seemed to be that the DL is no angel – I did not dispute this. I just thought that comparing a budhist leader to Al-Sadr was something of a stretch.

  31. GB Shaw
    June 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 | #31

    The Guardian article was  by Brendan O’Neill. I think the DL must have done something good if he has made enemies of the far right (O’Neill has moved from the extreme left  – Revolutionary Communist Party – to the neo con reactionary corner).

  32. June 23rd, 2008 at 13:09 | #32

    @GB Shaw – Last I checked Shaw himself went from supporting eugenics to being pals with Uncle Joe – from one kind of fascism to another is no long trip. In O’Neill’s case I cannot see how he can be called a ‘Neo Con reactionary’, even if this did put him on the far right – it doesn’t.

  33. The Trapped!
    June 26th, 2008 at 12:42 | #33

    Hi Buxi,
    I am really disappointed by your this statement: “legal suppression should also continue” Legal suppression? Japanese people at the time might have said that Nanjing massacre was a legal suppression.
    If you are supportive of any sort of suppression, then you do not need pen or computer, instead you should go for gun and baton and come to Lhasa and clean up what you think Wujin could not do.
    I thought you are also some kind of intellectual, at least at Chinese standard. So, I posted some ideas, thinking that there would always be some bridge if we wish. But finally you showed your true face, a wolf hiding behind screen. Now, go and join wujin or jiefang jun. I think that’s where your destiny is. Please don’t mess with those who wants to discuss based on humanity, common sense and moral-value.
    And concerning theocracy and DL, Tibetans know better than you think. Don’t you think how arrogant you guys are, saying that you know more about Tibetans than Tibetans themselves do? Is that based on what you were taught back there in the school–the darkest, the backwardnesses, the barbarian? With such insult and prejudice coming everyday, would anybody wonder why the March riot happen? Does DL need to inspire to rebel? Those incidents were caused by such insult and prejudice faced for decades.
    Hey guys who are in American, have you ever considered why you guy hates the whites so much? Because you are bellied, insulted, I mean even not only you, but your country as well. So, by now you should know what insult and prejudice can bring about. Want to talk about March incident, blame for Han people’s arrogance. Otherwise we could have had harmonious China long ago, but you Han people never let it happen, always thinking that they are the decision-maker, the helper and the guidance. Xinjiang has same story if you want to learn.

  34. Buxi
    June 26th, 2008 at 16:23 | #34

    @The Trapped,

    No, I don’t think the Nanjing massacre was “legal suppression”. There is nothing legal about killing innocent civilians, and I mean that very seriously in both Tibet and Nanjing. Those involved in illegal killings in Tibet should face a court-room.

    However, even if China’s legal system is weak, we do have a legal system. Even if parts of our constitution isn’t treated seriously, we do have a constitution. When I talk about “legal suppression”, I mean taking the steps within the law (which the vast majority of Chinese support) about a political issue.

    I don’t mean the arbitrary arrest of people who look Tibetan. I don’t mean forcing Tibetan monks into signing oaths that condemn the Dalai Lama. I definitely don’t mean silencing all Tibetans complaining about issues other than the independence issue. But I do believe China should continue to outlaw public protests that call for separatism, and I believe China should continue to outlaw racist propaganda.

    Hey guys who are in American, have you ever considered why you guy hates the whites so much?

    I don’t hate the whites at all. I don’t think any of the regular bloggers on this blog hates whites. My reaction to the “insults” that China faced this year is to try to talk to Americans in a logical, reasonable way. I hope that this will make them better understand us, better respect us.

    Tibetans might do better if you tried to do the same thing with the “arrogant Han”, instead of telling all of us that we are guilty of a crime. Tell me what you have done, with your own actions, to make Han better understand and respect the Tibetans.

  35. andy clark
    July 21st, 2008 at 21:58 | #35

    DL’s public messages are beautiful and musical. They are very good for meditation and hypnosis. We may not need to blame him for the inhumane serf system in the old Tibet, as he was only a child. How about now? He is definitely not a child anymore. I was shocked to learn what he actually does to his fellow Buddhists. Can someone explain why he does that to his own men? Check out this report. http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/reports/dorje-shugden-ban-the-segregation-wall-at-ganden-monastery/

  36. Hemulen
    July 21st, 2008 at 22:57 | #36


    But I do believe China should continue to outlaw public protests that call for separatism

    Well, the problem is that it is the government that decides what is separatism, verifiable subjective intentions carry no weight whatsoever in the Chinese legal system as it is today. No independent courts can strike down allegations of separatism. If you wave the snow lion flag as an expression of Tibetan cultural autonomy, you’ll be arrested and prosecuted all the same.

    …and what is wrong with separatism by the way? If the interests of the majority population in Tibet – the Tibetans – cannot be adequately protected under the current system, it is perfectly legitimate and understandable that people ask for a separate nation, a nation they believe is smothered by the People’s Republic. And to demand that Tibet is kept majority Tibetan is not more racist than it is to maintain immigration control in Hong Kong.

  37. July 21st, 2008 at 23:33 | #37

    @Buxi – Outlawing public protests calling for separatism only makes sense if you are trying to out law separatism full stop. Why is a peaceful demonstration any more objectionable than a pamphlet, or a website, or a book, or a cartoon, or a flag. All you would be doing is criminalising the expression of a political opinion that is held by millions within the territories that the PRC government claims – is this what you want?

  38. Buxi
    July 22nd, 2008 at 20:40 | #38


    @Buxi – Outlawing public protests calling for separatism only makes sense if you are trying to out law separatism full stop.

    Well, separatism *is* specifically outlawed within the PRC constitution.

    I don’t believe there should be any thought crimes, but if agitating for certain political acts can be against the law (every country I’m aware of has a law against sedition/treason)… why can’t separatism?


    Well, the problem is that it is the government that decides what is separatism, verifiable subjective intentions carry no weight whatsoever in the Chinese legal system as it is today.

    Challenges within the legal issue is a different problem, and a very serious one. But while pursuing reforms in the legal system, we can still talk about the ultimate legal *solutions* we’re headed to.

    As far as what is wrong with separatism… I don’t know in what sense you mean it is “legitimate” for some percentage of Chinese citizens to call for it, but it must then also be “legitimate” in the same sense for other Chinese citizens to oppose it.

  39. barry titus
    July 26th, 2008 at 18:24 | #39

    Snipings are like the smoke for those who have not located the fire.The central fact might tie all of these cluelets together. The central fact is that the Dalai Lama is used as a non evidence means of torture for enemies of the CIA:his telepathic powers are known as Varyadara, in Kagyu terminology.He has been harassing Barry Titus for fifteen years, and longer, and other members of his family.He has been in daiily association with the Clintons, since Jan 4, 1993. He has been hiding in a lawyer’s office IDiana Holand)in Tampa, since August, 2007.His behavior is anti Buddhist. He takes orders from Ed Kennedy and Suzan Cooper Goldberg.He is a brilliant telepath, and a tantric adept.B. Titus

  40. July 27th, 2008 at 00:15 | #40

    @Buxi – Because you would be outlawing an opinion. Sedition and treason are acts, they involve conspiring to spy, or commit sabotage, in short they require criminal acts. There is nothing criminal in saying that something should be a certain way. Even inciting people to violence involves a specific criminal act, simply saying that Tibet, Xinjiang, or Taiwan should be independent in an opinion. Secession may be illegal under the law, but saying that it should be made legal is also only an opinion, it is not actually unilaterally seceding. Finally, making even the expression of pro-independence opinions illegal does not mean that they will disappear, rather it means that the people who do so will meet in secret, or beyond the reach of the state, and will become more likely to take up arms against the state and seek support from overseas. The only thing it achieves is the conviction amongst the uninformed that independence movements are foreign-inspired, as you will never see the opinions of those who support secession in domestic media, and it will hide the real situation from people outside of the areas in which pro-independence forces operate.

  41. June 6th, 2009 at 19:10 | #41

    The Dalai Lama has been following Barry Titus around for fifteen years, to serve as an annoyance and a vehicle of communication for the Clintons, Ed Kennedy and their in group. As a Buddhist, the Dalai Lama is supposed to let people go when they attain enlightenment. He did not do that(in 1992) in this instance,but for CIA and Ed Kennedy money,remained affixed to Titus to allow the Clintons to harass him verbally.Mrs. Clinton’s anti male-‘ism, mainly.They are pretending to coerce Buddhism on the Jew Titus and such coercion Buddhism considers to be violence.So Tenzin is not non violent.He has lied on cue about the contents of Titus’s mind.The media lie about the whereabouts of the Dalai Lama who has been nowhere but New York City, Amsterdam, 1997-2007 and now Tampa Florida where he is hiding in a lawyer’s office with other Kagyupas taking orders from Hilary’s secret aide, Suzan Cooper Goldberg.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.