During the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Chinese people complained too. You would just need to be able to read Chinese to see it. Doing so didn’t land them in jail as this Brit (I presume) claims in this piece, “London Games will outdo Beijing because of freedom.” Breaking Chinese law does. In referring to the 2012 London Olympics, and apparently feeling inadequate, this retarded journalist says:
But these will still be better Olympics — in some ways, they already are — because London has the key ingredient that Beijing sorely lacked to host truly soul-searing games: freedom.
Let’s not forget. U.K. is bombing Libya to “protect Libyans.” This author apparently have no idea what freedom from bombs mean. I truly wish for a successful London 2012. Using ‘freedom’ to fill your feelings of inadequacy? It’s like saying my penis doesn’t work, but I have a convertible made in the heavens. And, by the way, that heavenly convertible has a habit of running over people.
kchew says
The 2012 Olympics should be called the New Imperialism Olympics, given that imperialism is back in vogue with the former imperialist master.
@mark_e_evans says
There’s no need to be mean to actually disabled people. Plenty of more colorful ways to say you think that journalist is full of crap.
Mentally disabled people don’t choose to be that way. Don’t be mean.
YinYang says
agreed. please wait for take 2.
raffiaflower says
The Moscow Olympics were boycotted because of the then-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Beijing was threatened to be shunned in 2008 for alleged “cultural genocide” and a bloody `crackdown’ in Tibet. Yet so far, not a squeak from human rights activists about boycotting the London games for Britain’s illegal invasion of Libya and its imperialist plan to remove a legitimate leader.
Did we blink, and miss something?
zack says
calling this journalist ‘mentally retarded’ is unfair to those who are truly mentally retarded;
calling him a cunt would be more apt
zack says
hang on a sec, what is this ‘arabnews’? i’ve never heard of it before; is it any relation to al jazeera english?
it’d sure explain a lot
Pete North says
“arabnews” is clearly part of the Western media conspiracy to undermine the Chinese government.
If they want to do better than Beijing, then maybe they should have a torch relay through the streets of Tripoli.
Charles Liu says
Let’s see if anyone would use the London Olympics to highlight issue kchew mentioned in comment #1.
raventhorn2000 says
I think beyond the external human rights issue, one needs to only look to UK’s own domestic economic issues.
They have an economy that’s not doing well. They had MASSIVE labor protest against their austerity measures in March, where they arrested 200, and charged 149 protesters, teachers, students.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/28/cuts-protest-violence-149-charged
And the whole time, Cameron begs a trade deal with China, while criticzing China’s Human rights.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13919917
WHILE also, UK is blocking Chinese companies such as Huawei from entering UK’s market out of “security concerns”.
*China should tell the Brits to go to hell. Tell them “no more trade deals, until you get your own house cleaned, stop beating your own people, stop your own xenophobia, and let Chinese companies in UK like you want UK companies in China.”
Ray says
I think we are giving too much attention to this article. It is clearly an opinion piece, he can say whatever he want.
YinYang says
@Ray
You are right, Ray. Just blowing some steam. The problem, though, U.S./U.K. media are moving in the direction of opinions as ‘news.’ That’s the business model at The Economist, Fox News, and the other players are following along.
Rolf says
Free Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Islas Malvinas.
Return the stolen national treasures to Egypt and China!
raffiaflower says
must have been a real slow day, for the sports editor to run drivel from a Colonel Bluster in a section that usually gets the football yobs.
Just when you thot the sun had set on Empire, up pops a straggler from some forgotten outpost (ArabNews?) who’s living in some time warp of faded superiority.
The comparison between Beijing and London is really out of range. Beijing was always about China’s coming-out party, to cap the re-invention of a 5000 year-old country after 30 years of reform. No detail was too small for the hosts in staging a perfect – perhaps too perfect – party.
England has its own culture and traditions that – despite the dark side of its colonialism – remain admired and draw visitors from around the world, with its `soft power’. The future is uncertain for England, but London can still put on a grand show based on its achievements. No need to slag off someone else to make yourself feel good. Sad.
raventhorn2000 says
London Riot, revealing an Olympic city seething with poverty, police brutality, and I dare to say, human rights abuses.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/context-london-riots
I guess lots of people London disagreed with the author above!
raventhorn2000 says
London Police arrest 160 people in “crackdown” of riot.
Where is Amnesty International now?
OH YEAH, Amnesty International’s headquarter is in London, Address: 1 Easton Street, London, WC1X 0DW, UK
Not near Tottenham enough, I guess.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Police-Arrest-160-in-London-Riots–127229478.html
Hey, AI, You had your fun during “Arab Spring”, where is your “London Summer”?
raventhorn2000 says
Over 200 arrests, London Police brag about using social media like Twitter to monitor “troublemakers” and arrest them based upon social media messages.
Wow, full circle.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-08/u-k-police-to-review-role-of-twitter-social-messaging-in-london-rioting.html
facts says
Breaking Chinese law does – ?
Perhaps you should read up on Chinese law so you understand the discrepancy between the legal framework and what is in practice allowed. In fact, a good way to end up in Chinese prison is to FOLLOW the law. The parts that are written without the intention that it should be followed, and there are alot of those. Most people here it seems are well aware that certain laws are not made to be followed. Amongst activists it is often said, half jokingly, that the safest way to end up in jail is to follow the law, not break it.
Did you know that Reeducation through labour camps (now ‘correctional facilities’) were made illegal both in 1996 AND in 2000 by the National People’s Congress? Do they still host 200,000 to 300,000 people? Yes. What is legal in China is, as long as there is a ‘political side’ to it, irrelevant.
Charles Liu says
@facts made illegal both in 1996 AND in 2000 by the National People’s Congress?
Citations please.
raventhorn2000 says
over 450 arrests now in UK riot on 3 straight nights of clash between protesters and police.
UK Media is all over calling the protesters “troublemakers”, people who have nothing better to do, people who just join the riot for no reason apparently.
Wow, when did UK begin to imitate China’s “official mouthpiece lines”? When did “freedom” turn into “troublemaking”??
*And no, I’m not gloating. Just observing the ironies ignored created by Western media for themselves.
facts says
1996’s Administrative Punishment Law and 2000’s Legislation law outlaws it on technicalities.
**About the camp system**
Re-education Through Labour camps, since 2007 known as ‘Correctional facilitates’ was brought into use in the early 1950’s, and was legally established in 1955 through the ‘Directives for a Complete
Purge of Hidden Counter-revolutionaries’1, and expanded upon in 1979’s ‘Supplementary Regulations Regarding Re-education Through Labour’ and 1982’s ‘Trial Methods for Implementation of Re-education Through Labour’.2 These camps are part of the administrative penalty system, not the criminal one, and are for those committing crimes that are not serious enough for criminal prosecution, or for perceived crimes not explicitly banned through law. It is thus the Police (Public Security Organs), not the court or Procuratorate, that sentences people to serve up to three years, with the possibility of a one year extension, in these camps.
The 1982 regulation lessened the responsibility of special Re-education Through Labour Management committee, intended to oversee the Police’s process and decision to send people to these camps, but that responsibility was effectively handed back to the Police, meaning that Police now detains, sentences, and supervises all themselves. This setup was further strengthened through the ‘The Approval of the Right to Approve the Reduction and Extension of Detention Period for Re-education Through Labour detainees’ in 1991.
**Why its illegal**
Since the promulgation of the ‘Administrative Punishment Law’ (1996) Re-education Through Labour camps are actually illegal, as article 9 specifies that any coercive action by the State involving limitation on a person’s liberty must be authorized by legislation passed by the Congress or its Standing committee, and current regulations on Re-education Through Labour is decisions by the State Council, hence rendering them illegal. Furthermore, article 37 of the ‘Chinese Constitution’ states also bans its use.
The ‘Legislation Law’ (2000) also states that only the Congress or its Standing Committee can pass laws and regulations allowing coercive measures limiting personal liberty by the State against citizens.
Since at least the early 2000’s there has been a debate on incorporating the Re-education Through Labor into a law, to clear the above mentioned legal situations, and also to reform the system. Small steps were taken in 2007, but at the time of writing, the draft law presented have not been promulgated.
Furthermore, local governments can expand the scope of the use of Re-education Through Labour camps, and, for example, in Shanxi province gambling has been added as a punishable offense, while in Shanghai municipality, infidelity has been added.
facts says
@raventhorn2000
Most major Chinese companies are part of the Chinese State, which adds some difficulty in sometimes allowing companies. The head of large Chinese companies automatically receives vice-cabinet minister ranking in the government, and am tied to the party structure. Media is just not very good at making this clear (and the Chinese government very good at toning it down) – why else do people still refer to Hu Jintao as ‘president (of the state)’ and not ‘General secretary’ (of the party), the latter being where his power comes from…
Allen says
@facts #21
I don’t think that’s true. While you may find head of large Chinese co. holding important positions in gov’t or to be leaders within the CCP, I’ve never heard of people getting automatic bids, no matter how successful your company is. Some cynics might counter you by arguing that you can become head of large Chinese co. only if you are part of the gov’t or tied to leadership of party – not the other way around! In any case, I see your statement to be categorically false…
That’s a misunderstanding. The state is under the leadership of the party, but the power of most what Hu does in public derives from his position in the state as President – not Party General Secretary – hence he is generally referred to as the President – not General Secretary.
facts says
to clarify, that re: companies and politics, its because most large companies here are either state owned or state controlled – they get the positions, not proper private companies (although they are rare).
re: Hu, that is just dead wrong. President and GS did not become the same thing until 1992 in an attempt to remove the party from spotlight, and before then you’ll see that the men in power where always the GS, with the president being (and in terms of titles still is) closer to a constitutional monarch. Of course, one could go a step further and say that leadership of the Central military commission is what provides power (you thing Deng, Hu, Zhao or early on Zemin was president? of course not). It’s a theater for ‘the west’ and they are damn good at it. Or to clarify, his position as number 1 in the Standing Committee of the Politburo comes from the GS, not him as president (which have in many cases not even merited a position on the SCPB at all (before 1992).
Allen says
@facts #23
Now we are speculating. Your use of the word “theater” reminds me of the term “rubber stamp democracy” used to describe the Chinese parliament. I refer you to this comment (https://hiddenharmonies.org/2011/07/eric-x-lis-counterpoint-op-ed-in-the-new-york-times/#comment-42604).
My point is not to refute your assessment that the power dynamics in Chinese politics is such that for many of China’s top leaders, power derives most from party position, with government position following from the party position. The process for that is murky enough that I don’t have a real position. But to say that everything about Chinese governance is just a mouth piece – a rubber stamp – a “theater” – to the party, well that I don’t agree. Formalities in structure give rise to dynamics in politics that do matter. The various positions that Hu holds lays on him various responsibilities. That’s why even if no one would have called Mao President, that does not mean calling Hu President is but a facade.
raventhorn2000 says
“Most major Chinese companies are part of the Chinese State, which adds some difficulty in sometimes allowing companies. The head of large Chinese companies automatically receives vice-cabinet minister ranking in the government, and am tied to the party structure. Media is just not very good at making this clear (and the Chinese government very good at toning it down) – why else do people still refer to Hu Jintao as ‘president (of the state)’ and not ‘General secretary’ (of the party), the latter being where his power comes from…”
I don’t know how any person can “automatically receives vice-cabinet minister ranking” in the government.
First of all, none of these people are required to accept such positions. So at best, it is a nomination process. Nothing “automatic” about it.
Second, even if they accept the position, that just means the private industries are represented in the government. It’s not an automatic entrance into the “Party”. So by your logic, even when the “Party” give up seats of the government to non-party members, they are controlling the industries?! ridiculous logic.
raventhorn2000 says
Facts:
Your type of connect the dot remotely is not even logic, it’s just a jumbo mess that you call it a conclusion.
YES, private industries and government have connections, BIG whoop. I like to see a government that’s completely disconnected from the private industries by your logic.