Home > Uncategorized > US forget “respecting Rule of Law”, full on “Vigilante Human Rights”

US forget “respecting Rule of Law”, full on “Vigilante Human Rights”

There is a missing dialog of US’s “Human Rights” for Chen Guangcheng (CGC).  That is, you don’t hear the US talk about “Rule of Law” much in this CGC story.

That’s because every one in the Western Media, the Western NGO’s, the Activists, and the US government, knows, CGC’s case has nothing to do with “Rule of Law”, It’s all out no holds bar, “vigilante Human Rights justice”.

Because, by “Rule of Law”, there is a long held US-China diplomatic agreement, that says plainly, those who live in US, live by US laws and legal systems, and those who live in China, live by Chinese laws and legal systems.

That means, if you are a US citizen, and you commit a crime under Chinese law while you are in China, you can be arrested by the Chinese police, and be prosecuted under Chinese law, and serve prison time in Chinese jail.  (Ignorance of the law is no excuse, just like in US).  Similarly, a Chinese citizen would be subject to US laws and US prisons if committed a crime in US.

Certain things are not crimes in China, but are crimes in some US states (for example, illegal abortion, importing Cuban cigars).  Some things are crimes in China, but not in US.

That also means, the US State Department and the US Embassies have publicly warned US citizens that they will be subject to Chinese laws while in China, and if you don’t like Chinese laws, don’t go to China, but if you go to China, US government cannot “rescue” you just because you don’t like the crime in China you are being prosecuted under.

That’s one of the oldest diplomatic AGREEMENTS nations have agreed to.

What we see in CGC is clearly a violation of that “rule of law”.  And I am surprised that the strongest advocates of this “rescue” came from some US lawyers and Congressman, such as Jerome Cohen, a self-proclaimed China law expert, who are effectively saying, “We don’t like the results of Chinese legal system on this Chinese citizen CGC, so let’s spring him from China.”  (BTW, Jerome Cohen regularly writes about “rule of law” in China, but it appears, not so much when he’s busy bypassing those same rule of laws when he doesn’t like their results).

Umm, Excuse you, you are a bunch of law respecting people, supposedly.  If you are really interested in “rule of law” and “human rights” for CGC, you should be insisting on a legal Appeal for CGC, NOT a literal “flight from jurisdiction”.

By the type of cloak and dagger operation you have conducted, you have further nothing but street justice, “vigilante human rights”, a hollow victory for your own personal cause of 1 man.

You know why you are not insisting on a legal Appeal for CGC in China?  Because CGC has exhausted his appeal in the Chinese legal system.  He had his appeal in a higher Chinese court and lost.  And that means, in China’s “rules of law”, CGC was treated fairly in the justice system.

Not fair, you say, well, no legal system is perfect.  Some say, he didn’t have access to his lawyers in the appeal.  Well, nothing in Chinese law says guarantee to lawyers in the appeal, and incidentally, he claimed to be a competent lawyer himself, (a rather flimsy lie), then he had himself as his lawyer.

And in the Chinese Civil Law system, the appeals court’s function is not to rehear the previous arguments from the actual case, but to examine correctness of lower court’s process.  Thus, lawyers are rarely used in the appeals process.

And if you are willing to sacrifice the “RULE of LAW” (and the long held diplomatic agreement) for your sense of Perfect justice, then that is “RULE Of MAN” and “vigilante justice” that you respect.

If CGC himself is claiming that he wants “rule of law” in China, then he should insist on staying in China, appeal if possible, and if he loses, live out the consequences.  Appealing for “rescue” from foreigners is hardly an act of “Rule of Law”.

But before you become content with that, let me give you the simple consequences:

(1) since US is breaking the diplomatic agreement on jurisdiction of laws, that means, China (and other nations) can “rescue” which ever criminal they feel are being wrongfully prosecuted in US, and give them “asylum”.

(2) since US is breaking the diplomatic agreement on jurisdiction of laws, that means, even if China does reach an “agreement” with US on CGC, that “agreement” may be later declared void, because China determines that it is being “unfairly” targeted by US justice system, and wants a little of its own “vigilante justice” payback.  “Rule of Law”, go suck it, US broke it 1st.

Hey, why should US be the ONLY one getting to have “vigilante justice”??

And if Western Media wants to romanticize this CGC affair, let’s just keep clear the imagery:  CGC will remain, by the Chinese legal system, an Ex-Convict, even if “free” by agreement with US.  US is thus, falling in love with an Ex-Con after much distant exchange of letters of love and affections for each other.

Appropriately, there are many women in US who fall in love with Ex-Con’s and get married to them to “rescue” them.

It may be romantic by some definition and even fashionable in US and the West.  Hey, that’s what it really is.


And it’s not just the CGC affair.  Recently, US and the West in general has been on a slew of “vigilantism” running amok in the world, even in itself.

Take for example, the Hacktivist groups who went after the US government and big corporations.  The Message from them is simple, if things are not fair, we will take matters into our own hands in our own ways to seek “justice”, forget the process, because the process is not fair.  Heck, the process might be defined by some Communist leader in China, enforced by Chinese loans through US banks and corporations.

Well, with US government doing the same, how do you tell the Anarchists on the net and on the street that they should obey the “rules”?

US government can even order death by drone on one of its own citizens, without trial, without even warrants, by Executive order alone!  Hey, nothing speedier than flying death justice!

Well great, Command in chief of instant justice, you have inspired many to follow their own justice.  I can’t wait to see what the 99% might do next in US and Europe.

***I further pose a question, if so many of the self-proclaimed “human rights leaders” of China leave China, who will become the “Martin Luther King Jr.” of China?  (for the sake of indulging in their own fantasies).

For the sake of indulging in fantasies, did MLK Jr. “escape” to another country, in view of his prison terms, the death threats to his family, the violent confrontations potential for every protest, the FBI surveillance on him, etc.??


Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. zack
    May 4th, 2012 at 22:10 | #1

    it just goes to show that the West only respect power, not the rule of law, and many western commentators will justify it by saying something to the effect of ‘Chinese law is unjust or the government has deplorable human rights or some other bullshit excuse to enable them to continue subverting China for their own geopolitical goals.

    Given how much trouble CGC has caused, i think it’d be just to rescind his parole and throw him back into prison for collaborating with anti China forces-surely some sort of case could be made for his collaborating with espionage and the such.

  2. Dennis
    May 5th, 2012 at 00:24 | #2

    Not true. Western leaders are highly influenced by the public opinion, especially the kind that is portrayed in mass media. If they think there is public outrage in the West, then they feel compelled to help CGC. You need votes to stay alive in democratic politics.

    It was Mao Zedong who respected power the most:

    Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
    Chapter 5

    Western leaders fear voters’ wrath, and will do a lot of things to appease them. Western politicians are in fact even at times “forced” by constituents to do things which they believe is not right. In China, on the other hand, the people fear the government. If you were in China and wrote a blog that criticized China, you could get arrested. They can set search engines so people searching for you can’t even search your name. That will not normally happen in the US. If a Chinese goes to the US to study in the US and gets pregnant in the US, she will be asked to get an abortion, even if she is in US soil.

    Western voters are emotionally outraged by China’s force abortions, which CGC revealed to the west. In here, the doctrine of a law that is unjust should not be followed is applicable. The British could not just kill Gandhi and his thousands of followers in India because he was able to argue that laws are unjust so his people have the right not to follow them. Britain was literally forced to give up the whole Indian subcontinent — India and Pakistan.

    In China, if you attempted something like what Gandhi did, you would get the Tiananmen Massacre. You would the street you’ve walked on as kid covered in blood. That is because China’s leaders do not think like the British.

  3. jxie
    May 5th, 2012 at 05:56 | #3


    The British could not just kill Gandhi and his thousands of followers in India because he was able to argue that laws are unjust so his people have the right not to follow them. Britain was literally forced to give up the whole Indian subcontinent — India and Pakistan.

    Gosh you are dopey. The British had no problem of killing thousands of unarmed protesters, e.g. the Amritsar Massacre. In term of unnecessary unprovoked killing and density of the fatalities, the Amritsar Massacre is several orders of magnitude worse than the “Tiananmen Massacre”. Prior to the WW2, Gandhi had spent a lot of time in British prisons. The British had to give up its sovereignty over British India not because of that “half-naked fakir” and his followers, but rather if they didn’t, the large number of brown soldiers serving in the WW2 and fighting valiantly for the UK would likely revolve. The British had two choices: graceful exit or forceful eviction. The only credit they deserved was they chose wisely.

    During the WW2, the Japanese showed Asian colonial subjects the mythical power they associated their colonial masters with, no longer existed. The British withdrew and/or surrendered as fast as humanly possible when the Japanese advanced, and the fight-back in the Asian theater was largely done by the Americans and the Chinese. Lee Kuan-Yew’s memoirs recorded the change of natives’ views after the WW2 vividly. When the British came back and attempted to revive the old arrangements, the natives were all fed up. One by one they kicked the British out.

  4. Dennis
    May 5th, 2012 at 07:08 | #4

    The Amritsar massacre was not sanctioned by the British government. A Committee of Inquiry, chaired by Lord Hunter, was established to investigate the massacre. A total of 379 people were found to have died. The British Brigadier – Dyer, who ordered the firing, was condemned by his government and removed from his position because to his actions.

    The Tiananmen massacre not only caused the lives of thousands. (Early on, the West received a casualty figure of 2,600 from the Chinese Red Cross.) But the Chinese government then quickly hid the details from world view. It was also was far bloodier, as instead of rifles, you had tanks actually crushing people to death. According to general sources, the Tiananmen Massacre was ordered by China’s Party Elders (Deng, Li Xiannian, Peng Zhen, Yang Shangkun, and Wang Zhen) and hailed by the government as the right thing to do. If China was was like the (imperialistic) Britain of 1919, then all of China’s Party Elders would have have been court-marshalled, and the culprits shamed, and then removed from their position.

    While 1919 Britain said that it was a bad thing to do, in “civilized” China of the modern age, the China’s leaders even defend their shameful actions. There are those who say that is was really just Deng’s decision. So if it was only him, then why was he not placed on trial?

    While it is true that the Tiananmen massacre stopped the spread of a revolt that could have eventually toppled the Chinese government, cold-blooded killing of unarmed civilians is a shameful act that should be condemned by any civilized government. Why should evil act be given praise? Because it raised enough fear to effectively stop the pro-democracy movement? In the Philippines, the dictator- Marcos also ordered tanks out into the streets, in 1986. But these tanks never killed unarmed civilians. It was a bloodless revolution. And it is something that cannot happen in the “civilized” China.

  5. May 5th, 2012 at 08:04 | #5

    Some delusional Chinese activists have a very naive view of the west while many from the west have a very naive and false superior view of themselves and their part in history. For example, you can actually find people defend the Opium wars, the famine caused by the British in Ireland, South Asia, Armritsar massacre etc. On top of that they view British colonialism as totally acceptable, unbeknown to them is one of the greatest abomination in human history. It is in this backdrop that all these tragedies occurred but they always skirt the biggest issue.

    For example, when the British army command gave order to fire on unarmed civilian en mass (real definition of massacre) they would choose the low ball figure of 379 while ignoring the 1500 figures reported by INC. During June 4th 1989, no mass firing on unarmed civilians ever happened on Tiananmen square but it would be reported as massacre. This is despite the fact that people present at the square, Hou Dejian, for example testified that no firing ever happened on the square itself. They would also ignored the fact that many soldiers were killed before the troops ever reached the square. They totally ignored the fact that the troops have to fight to clear barricades 44 days after martial law was imposed. While in their own backyard even a benign movement like OWS would be removed by force even if the dateline or street was crossed.

    The biggest reason the Tiananmen tragedy happed was because the authority allowed it to get out of hand and failed to check the foreign fund being channelled into the movement. They are oblivious to the fact that, tents, food, water and even moneyed was supplied to keep the movement going. And these foreigners actually think that a revolt would happened in 1989. They are so ignorant of Chinese history, any revolution in China not supported by the mass would never succeed. It is no wonder that after the Arab spring, we see mass report of Chinese spring but what we get is actually the OWS and the many riots that happened across Europe.

  6. raffiaflower
    May 5th, 2012 at 08:25 | #6

    “That is because China’s leaders do not think like the British”.

    Onwar.com: Giving no word of warning, he ordered 50 soldiers to fire into the gathering, and for 10 to 15 minutes 1,650 rounds of ammunition were unloaded into the screaming, terrified crowd, some of whom were trampled by those desperately trying to escape.
    According to official estimates, nearly 400 civilians were killed, and another 1,200 were left wounded with no medical attention.
    Dyer, who argued his action was necessary to produce a “moral and widespread effect,” admitted that the firing would have continued had more ammunition been available.
    The governor of the Punjab province supported the massacre at Amritsar and, on April 15, placed the entire province under martial law.
    Viceroy Chelmsford, however, characterized the action as “an error of judgment,” and when Secretary of State Montagu learned of the slaughter, he appointed a commission of inquiry, headed by Lord Hunter. Although Dyer was subsequently relieved of his command, he returned a hero to many in Britain, especially conservatives, who presented him with a jeweled sword inscribed “Saviour of the Punjab.”

    Dyer did not have the official backing of the British government – but the support he received for his actions, and words, were de facto endorsement of the prevailing imperialist creed that deemed such bloody deeds necessary – even the white man’s right – to control the lesser races.
    A few men were against it because they were enlightened or savvy enough to realize that the natives were already getting restless and that British colonial rule, long enforced only with the help of a compadre class and the docility of the masses, was facing a challenge from rising nationalism.
    The official condemnation was only in the face of this creeping reality.
    It never changed the arrogant British mindset that they could shoot as they pleased: in 1925, a British-led contingent of colonial Indian soldiers shot textile workers in Shamian island agitating for unionization.
    As for the corrupt gangster Marcos, his hands itched to pull the trigger but he longer commanded the loyalty of his army cronies, nor the support of his American patron that tolerated his excesses in exchange for supporting the Vietnam War.

  7. May 5th, 2012 at 08:27 | #7

    Let’s do a case study on comment #2 here. Some clueless dude likes to throw around phrase such as “public opinion” but what exactly is that? How does one measure it? For example, a Chinese diplomat once commented to his American counterparts that if China is fighting two foreign wars simultaneously with Chinese soldiers coming back in body bags weekly, the CPC would be out of power.

    Some say a little bit of learning is a very dangerous thing and I would have to agree. How many time have we seen some morons throw around what Mao is alleged to have said to paint a distorted view of a person. Do they even bother to do a little research to check the validity of their claim?

    A real historian will know that the biggest massacre ever happened in China in the 20th century is the April 12th 1927 massacre, a few thousand people were killed in the most brutal ways. It is under this backdrop that Mao said “以后要十分注意军事,须知政权是由枪杆子里取得的”

    Han Han has published so many books and blog articles criticising the CPC and make millions doing it. It is defamation and promoting violence, separatism or racism that is banned in China. For example, if some Chinese dude say this part of the land belong to a certain kind of Chinese and others are not allowed, it would be banned!

    Again another reference to Gandhi. He failed to see that the British government is exploiting the whole of the South Asian continent and a bunch of poor Southeast Asian countries and since the British people tolerated it, it is OK. Anyway, in case you don’t know Aung Sang was killed in an assassination involving British military intelligence. Of course they would come back defending the British government saying it did not officially ordered it. Just like the Armritsar massacre when public opinion turned against them, they simply throw out a few fall guys. The same thing happened during the Easter uprising in Ireland. The British government also executed a few Australian officers for their role in massacre during the Boar war. The British government ordered some shitty things and when it looks bad, change the tune. It is in this very aspect that the PRC is being outplayed.

    But I do agree that Chinese leaders do not think like the British ones.

  8. zack
    May 5th, 2012 at 11:54 | #8

    lol wow “Dennis” you just got owned.

  9. May 5th, 2012 at 12:23 | #9

    “The Amritsar massacre was not sanctioned by the British government.”

    You forgot “… in hindsight.”

    By your logic, nothing is ever sanctioned by the British government until they write up a report and the queen stamp the royal seal.

    Well, in any case, not that this “massacre” would have been prevented by “public opinion”, or was it influenced by the racist “public opinion” in Britain to start with?

    Similarly, the hot collar of “vigilante Human rights” in US is quite naturally a product of misguided “public opinions” directed by the media.

  10. zack
    May 5th, 2012 at 13:20 | #10

    i should also note that the British public rallied behind Dyer and even had a fund set up for him. What sort of excuse do the British have “in hindsight”?

  11. Charles Liu
    May 5th, 2012 at 22:54 | #11

    There’re evidence CGC absconding house arrest coninciding with US-China economic summit could be a right wing consipracy to interfer with economic redress Obama needed for upcoming presidential eletion:

    – Two prominent figures in the story, Hu Jia and Bob Fu of China Aid are Bush era National Endowment for Democracy (NED) grantees;

    – Hu Jia is linked to the International Republican Institute (IRI);

    – Bob Fu has close association with the Southern Baptis Convention (SBC) and China Aid continues to be funded by conservative evangelicals.

    Is that enough? I don’t know, but I’m suspecious.

  12. Dennis
    May 6th, 2012 at 02:34 | #12

    Let me organize thoughts

    1) In the West, politicians worry about public opinion because of the power of the vote, in China there is fear of government reaction to their action.

    Of course, jxie has a point. Since there is no real measure of “public opinion” most of the time, Western politicians ask their friends, or rely on newspapers. Strange as it may appear in our modern age, in circa 1919, the Morning Post, a conservative, pro-Imperialistic newspaper, actually honored Dyer and blamed the Amritsar Massacre on Mr. Mantagu. In a democracy, everbody is entitled to his own opinion. Dyer was even called the Savior of the Punjab.

    2) In China, there is no real freedom of the press because of government censorship.

    Reading the counter, I read about

    1) The Amritsar massacre. The British had no problem killing the Indians

    Of course, there was a wide range of public opinion at the time. Those connected to the British Raj thought that force was needed to maintain control, because the Indians were not “enlightened” enough for democracy. From Wikipedia, you can read:

    “British Labour Party Conference at Scarborough unanimously passed a resolution on 24 June 1920 denouncing the Amritsar massacre as “cruel and barbarous action” of British officers in Punjab and called for their trial, recall of Michael O’Dwyer and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, and repeal repressive legislation.”

    But in fact, many British at the time (and pro-imperialist writers like those in the Morning Post) were of the opinion that is was the right thing to do. Dyer actually believed it was the right thing to do. When asked
    “supposing the passage was sufficient to allow the armoured cars to go in, would you have opened fire with the machine guns?”
    Dyer’s surprising answer was
    “I think probably, yes.”

    He had two armored cars with machine guns which he actually wanted to use!

    So here’s my thought on all this.

    1) Public opinion is not always good. The masses can also be “cruel and barbaric.” And yes, much of the British public were racist at the time. They thought of themselves as superior to the Indians.

    2) Raventhorn is partly true. There were, among the British population, people who approved of Dyer’s actions. Some even had the gall to say so in their newspapers.

    The British government called a trial, and circa 1920 declared the massacre “cruel and barbaric” and a grave error.

    3) The Chinese government should also declare the Tiananmen Massacre “cruel and barbaric.”

    Arresting people is fine, but the death penalty is too cruel a punishment for people who were just protesting.

    4) The people who were responsible should be put on trial– the humiliation will do them some good. If you do not want to punish everybody, even a “fall guy” like jxie says the British are doing, should be selected. That way, not the whole government can be called “cruel and barbaric”

    5) It appears to me that in China, the “the cruel and barbaric” leaders only get criticized many years after they are dead. Why not while they are living? And leaders should not criticize the actions of dead leaders when they are doing a lot of things which can cause them a lot of criticism (after they are dead) also.

    I’d like to hear more opinions on this, including those who disagree. I think this improves my English writing and argumentation skills a lot. (Though I use English a lot in IT, and I think my English is really good, he he he.).

  13. Wayne
    May 6th, 2012 at 04:45 | #13


    Dennis. You are an idiot.

    British rule in India produced horrific genocides of tens of millions of people through the deliberate engineering of famine. I refer you to the excellent book, “Victorian Holocausts” by Mike Davies.

    The British went to war to force the Chinese to accept large scale imports of opium, which resulted in drug addiction on a massive scale. A true crime against humanity.

    And of course the Irish famine of the 1840s killed off about 20% of the population.

    Nowadays, people everywhere, in the East and the West, consider drug traffickers to be the lowest of the low, and despicable scum. In several Asian countries drug traffickers are routinely executed, and even many ordinary people in the West applaud these sorts of policies.

    Yet the British drug traffickers committed their crimes on a scale that simply beggars belief.

    Perhaps you should also educate yourself about the response of the British to the Kenyan revolutionary struggles of the 1950s. It makes even what the Chinese are accused of in Tibet, seem like a teddy bears picnic. The British interned 1.5 million Kenyans in the 1950s, out of a population of 7 to 8 million. Up to 300,000 died. This is the equivalent of 20,000,000 deaths in China – but over an incredibly short period of just five or six years.

    Enough of your shameless hypocrisy, Dennis.

  14. Wayne
    May 6th, 2012 at 04:49 | #14

    British colonial holocausts in India:


    This Dennis fellow is as morally repugnant as a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier.

  15. Wayne
    May 6th, 2012 at 04:56 | #15

    It makes me laugh, how these Westerners continually go on about their moral superiority, because they have apparent ‘freedom’, ‘human rights’ etc at home.

    Yes. One is relatively free to write or say what one wants in the West (of course within certain limits. In many countries Holocaust denial can mean a jail sentence – and some Eastern European countries even extend these to denying alleged ‘crimes’ of communism).

    But even if this is true, well so what? It does not mean the West is morally superior.

    Look at the overall record of the West. Of imperialism. Of genocide. Of slavery.

    White people like Dennis going on about how morally superior the West is; is analogous to a mass murderer saying he is really a nice guy, because he does one thing right —like being nice to his dog and taking it out for walks everyday.

    Well how about this Dennis. I welcome your right to speak on this forum. I believe in freedom of speech. And I love my dog.

    But if I said I also rejoiced over September 11 and the killing of Westerners, would you still consider me a nice guy, simply because I support your right to ‘freedom’ of expression on this forum?

  16. Wayne
    May 6th, 2012 at 05:08 | #16

    By the way, awesome response to the 白皮猪 Ray. You utterly destroyed the little turd. Thanks for the info about the 1927 massacre. Mao is my hero and always will be.

  17. MatthewTan
    May 6th, 2012 at 09:04 | #17

    raventhorn: “in China’s “rules of law”, CGC was treated fairly in the justice system.”

    Has the legality of CGC’s imprisonment and subsequent house arrest (or some say “parole”) been settled to the satisfaction of people here?

    The other issue is that CGC claimed to have been beaten up – if true this would count as failure in rule of law. And this led many people with sympathy to his rescue with good justifications. Many people – including local collaborators.

  18. raventhorn
    May 6th, 2012 at 10:55 | #18


    “Has the legality of CGC’s imprisonment and subsequent house arrest (or some say “parole”) been settled to the satisfaction of people here?”

    People “where”? And what percentage would be call “satisfaction”? Because I’m pretty sure there are always going to be people unsatisfied with every court’s judgment.

    “The other issue is that CGC claimed to have been beaten up – if true this would count as failure in rule of law. And this led many people with sympathy to his rescue with good justifications. Many people – including local collaborators.”

    Well, US embassy examined CGC upon arrival. Let’s see the medical records. I heard nothing to substantiate his claims.

    And on the side note, Convicts in US get beaten up all the time, is that a “failure in rule of law”?? Because with more 1% of US population in prison, and majority of them minority race and ethnic groups, that’s an aweful lot of “failure in rule of law”.

  19. Dennis
    May 6th, 2012 at 12:31 | #19

    The arguments posed are very funny. Ha ha ha.

    Poisoning the well is a well-known logical fallacy which Wayne just committed.

    And the arguments presented are also illogical. The Opium Wars were really bad — nobody is arguing that it was ever correct. The Amritsar Massacre was bad. Every British historian would admit that. That is history. China, the “Middle Kingdom” became weak because it had the ridiculous idea that there was nothing good the West could offer and shut themselves from Western ideas and technology. And that’s how it ended up swallowing ridiculous terms from the British.

    The question here is whether or not what China is doing today is moral and humane. The argument that what China is doing is not bad because once upon a time Britain did that too is preposterous.
    That’s like a murderer saying murder is not bad because somebody else did it. How logical is that? (Another argumentation error)

    Of course, I was expecting somebody to mention the Amritsar Massacre from the start. That maneuver was planned so that I could discuss on the Tiananmen Massacre. These two are parallel, and if the Amritsar Massacre is bad, then so is the Tiananmen Massacre. (But again, obviously, people ignored this obvious next step.)

    One obvious difference is that China does not admit that what it did was wrong in Tiananmen. The British on the other hand, declared what they did in Amritsar “cruel and barbaric.”

    And since I expecting the trashing of imperialist Britain, I expected somebody to notice the ideas of imperialist Britain circa 1920 to show a parallel to the China of today — showing that China has imperialistic tendencies right now– which the world is noticing.

    And why is it that nobody is arguing against my comments about Chinese censorship, and lack of freedom of the press? It seems like everybody surrendered to that comment already.

    How about Mao’s 枪杆子里面出政权 ? That’s historical fact so there’s no way to argue about that.

    I am well aware of the bad things that Britain did in the past. I also know the atrocities done by the Americans against the North American Indians. I can argue on the opposite side of these arguments as well. But then, if I were to do that, I would bring out much better arguments.

  20. Wayne
    May 6th, 2012 at 12:53 | #20


    Fuck Dennis. Are you dense. Mao made the 枪杆子里面出政权 comment in the context of the communist having suffered a large scale massacre – you dense idiot.

    Britain (and the US) are imperialist powers RIGHT NOW. How many countries have these two anglo saxon powers invaded just this past decade — you idiot?

    The US has some 700 military bases strung round the globe. How many does China have? ZERO.

    How many innocent Iraqis, Afghans, and others have been murdered by US and British imperialism just this past decade? You fucking dumb white cunt.

  21. Wayne
    May 6th, 2012 at 12:55 | #21

    The reference to past British misdeeds was in response to your idiotic comments on how British behaviour in India was so moral. It was anything but. The British were responsible for nazi like atrocities in India. That is a a statement of fact and has nothing to do with the goings on in CHina today.

  22. Robert Thomas
    May 6th, 2012 at 13:14 | #22


    Interesting comments Wayne. However, I object to the use of racial slurs such as ‘白皮豬’. Furthermore, perhaps I missed it, but I do not think Dennis has made reference to his ethnicity. If so, what is it that makes you think he is white?

    One more thing, you mention moral superiority. Do you think feelings of moral superiority are something that all people, regardless of their ethnicity/nationality/etc., can experience?

  23. Wayne
    May 6th, 2012 at 13:23 | #23

    Do you think feelings of moral superiority are something that all people, regardless of their ethnicity/nationality/etc., can experience?

    It is something that Anglo Saxons have in particular large measure. A sort of self-righteous, acting all sort of outraged thing, that they have that is quite unique to them.

    You don’t hear a lot about Nigerians, or Indians, or Japanese, or Russians, or even Italians or Greeks, making nearly the same sorts of demands on other people.

    The average Chinese hardly even thinks about what other Asians do, let alone what say, Europeans and Africans may do to each other. The most that Chinese would do would look on with a sense of bemusement. Whereas Anglo Saxons would act all sort of outraged and use the apparent misdeeds of others to go in and ‘kick some ass’. Because Anglo Saxons are the most vicious race on the planet. Sort of like the ‘Kony’ video – where Anglos want to go in and do something – even though the shit they did to Africa in the past, and stiill now would make Kony seem like a little choir boy.

    It is this missionizing zeal that these Anglo Saxons have. But of course it is not necessarily for the sake of improving others.

  24. Robert Thomas
    May 6th, 2012 at 13:39 | #24

    Perhaps you missed the first half of my post:

    ‘I object to the use of racial slurs such as 『白皮豬』. Furthermore, perhaps I missed it, but I do not think Dennis has made reference to his ethnicity. If so, what is it that makes you think he is white?’

  25. Dennis
    May 6th, 2012 at 15:25 | #25

    There are good and evil people in any race. Those who picture the British as good or bad are mistaken. That’s a narrow-minded view that I would only expect of children. Even within a person, there is good and evil fighting within the subconscious. I never said the British were moral. I pointed out that at least there were people within the same race who called the acts of other people of their own race “cruel and barbaric” even though those who committed the heinous acts themselves argued that it was not so.

    In the same way, I find that the argument that a nation can do be cruel simply because some other nation has also been cruel, in my opinion, childish and immature.

    I can’t be called a white pig since I don’t look the part. I’ve been called Chinese in a few places in Asia, America and Europe, but I’ve always been quick to explain I am not.

    I’ve seen bigotry and prejudice in so many different races, which makes me sad. And whenever I meet people, I give the arguments of the people they oppose. I have never seen it change their minds. Every race seems to become firmly rooted in their belief system. Just think of the Nazis.

    It’s like religion. I’ve taken religious classes in a number of different religions. Having no religion helps since I can say I want to convert. Every religion believes his own religion is the only right path. Of course, the people who believe religion is nonsense are also unshakable in their belief. The hard line attitude of these people creates conflict, and war.

  26. Bridge
    May 6th, 2012 at 18:56 | #26

    “The question here is whether or not what China is doing today is moral and humane. The argument that what China is doing is not bad because once upon a time Britain did that too is preposterous.
    That’s like a murderer saying murder is not bad because somebody else did it. How logical is that? (Another argumentation error)

    In the same way, I find that the argument that a nation can do be cruel simply because some other nation has also been cruel, in my opinion, childish and immature.”

    That is indeed illogical, but no one here is using that logic, except maybe yourself – Straw man is also a logical fallacy. When people here bring out the murderous history of Anglo Saxon powers, they want to challenge the legitimacy and expose the hypocritical nature of those western powers who criticize China or others on the ground of ‘Morale or Human rights’. So a more accurate analogy is a murderer, who benefited hugely by killing many in the past and still doing so today and get away with it, lectures someone on ‘Morale and Humane’. I will just give him the finger and say ‘Shut up’. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate ‘Morale and Humane’, it’s just that I feel disgusted when this person talks about it.

    You may now say that you are not from those countries and you equally criticize their abuse of power. I have an issue with that too, especially with the word ‘equally’, because what China did and is doing is nothing compared to that of the Anglo Saxon world. By blaming both parties equally, you are not actually being fair. There’s a huge difference between murdering people and killing people in a car accident. But of course, this is all from a morale point of view. In world politics, what’s the difference? This is just a game played by different political powers and people like you fall right into it.

    BTW, you honestly think that your line of arguing hasn’t been brought up by others in this forum before? ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’… blah, blah, blah…. Oh pleeease…

  27. silentchinese
    May 6th, 2012 at 20:04 | #27

    The Legal term is “Extraterritoriality”.

    This is one of those things that china’s struggled ot get rid off.

  28. Robert Thomas
    May 7th, 2012 at 03:09 | #28

    I asked:

    ‘Do you think feelings of moral superiority are something that all people, regardless of their ethnicity/nationality/etc., can experience?’

    Part of your response was:

    ‘You don’t hear a lot about Nigerians, or Indians, or Japanese, or Russians, or even Italians or Greeks, making nearly the same sorts of demands on other people.’

    Ideas of moral superiority can be used as a pretext for expansionism and colonialism. In the histories of all the regions which you mention above, are there any which have not carried out expansionist or colonialist practices?

    Lastly, you mention China. Were the legal, cultural and religious practices in place in Tibet prior to 1950 altered in anyway by the Chinese government?

  29. jimmy
    May 7th, 2012 at 03:45 | #29

    China should have forcefully tell the US ‘you can have guangcheng and all his sh**t, but hand over people like Chi Mak (and many, many others) who have been jailed on very flimsy evidence and botched prosecution over to us’. Read http://www.scribd.com/jimmyfung40 for more facts.

  30. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 05:40 | #30

    I mean to say, CGC was discussed in another thread (“CGC Escapes”) for some time, and the issue of “what is he being detained for” (prison term and subsequent house arrest) does not seemed to be settled. I read from beginning to end there, and I remained uneducated on this. (Maybe I missed something? there?) I was the last person to post there.

  31. perspectivehere
    May 7th, 2012 at 07:21 | #31

    While there are a some in the West (and amongst supporters of the West) who are making good faith efforts to come to terms with the true facts of British imperialism, these voices are mostly ignored by the mainstream media, except with a small number of exceptions, such as this:

    Deny the British empire’s crimes? No, we ignore them
    New evidence of British colonial atrocities has not changed our national ability to disregard it

    guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 April 2012

    “There is one thing you can say for the Holocaust deniers: at least they know what they are denying. In order to sustain the lies they tell, they must engage in strenuous falsification. To dismiss Britain’s colonial atrocities, no such effort is required. Most people appear to be unaware that anything needs to be denied.

    The story of benign imperialism, whose overriding purpose was not to seize land, labour and commodities but to teach the natives English, table manners and double-entry book-keeping, is a myth that has been carefully propagated by the rightwing press. But it draws its power from a remarkable national ability to airbrush and disregard our past.

    Last week’s revelations, that the British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story. But it was either ignored or consigned to a footnote by most of the British press. I was unable to find any mention of the secret archive on the Telegraph’s website. The Mail’s only coverage, as far as I can determine, was an opinion piece by a historian called Lawrence James, who used the occasion to insist that any deficiencies in the management of the colonies were the work of “a sprinkling of misfits, incompetents and bullies”, while everyone else was “dedicated, loyal and disciplined”.”


    “[Historian Caroline] Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

    The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as “Labour and freedom” and “He who helps himself will also be helped”. Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

    Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women’s breasts. They cut off inmates’ ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

    Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.”


    Many documents detailing atrocities such as these in the dozens of other British colonies across the world have been deliberately destroyed:

    “The papers at Hanslope Park include monthly intelligence reports on the “elimination” of the colonial authority’s enemies in 1950s Malaya; records showing ministers in London were aware of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya, including a case of a man said to have been “roasted alive”; and papers detailing the lengths to which the UK went to forcibly remove islanders from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

    However, among the documents are a handful which show that many of the most sensitive papers from Britain’s late colonial era were not hidden away, but simply destroyed. These papers give the instructions for systematic destruction issued in 1961 after Iain Macleod, secretary of state for the colonies, directed that post-independence governments should not get any material that “might embarrass Her Majesty’s government”, that could “embarrass members of the police, military forces, public servants or others eg police informers”, that might compromise intelligence sources, or that might “be used unethically by ministers in the successor government”.”

    See Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes
    Review finds thousands of papers detailing shameful acts were culled, while others were kept secret illegally
    The Guardian, Wednesday 18 April 2012

    The forced revelation, due to the lawsuit filed by tortured Kenyans, of the destruction of British colonial documents detailed atrocities is big news, but barely reported in the mainstream media. The Guardian deserves to be applauded for its forthrightness, and its being true to the ideals of its founders, who formed the Guardian’s predecessor paper, the Manchester Observer, after the Peterloo Massacre of 1819, when armed cavalry attacked a crowd of peaceful protesters with drawn swords in Manchester.

  32. LOLZ
    May 8th, 2012 at 08:31 | #32

    “US government can even order death by drone on one of its own citizens, without trial, without even warrants, by Executive order alone! ”

    This is clearly not true. The US government can order the death by drone on FOREIGN CITIZENS without trial, but not one of its own. The language in the “human rights” movement cleverly limited the scope of “human rights” to how a government treat its OWN people rather than how the government treats citizens of other nations.

    I think many if not most of the so called “China defenders” are fine the concept of “Human rights”. After all, why wouldn’t Chinese want other Chinese people to have better control over their lives. However, many would also agree that the western nations are using the concept of “human rights” to interfere with the operation of other nations while ignoring (or justifying) their own human rights abuses, often to advance their own interests. Let’s be honest here, “Human Rights” has been hijacked and used as propaganda tool by Western governments to achieve all sorts of goals from starting up wars in the mideast to leverage trade talks against places like China. In the name of “human rights”, Western nation’s involvement in places like Iraq has caused the death of far more people than dictators such as Saddam could have done himself over the same time period. In domestic politics, “Human Rights” have been used Western nations as means to get votes from targeted populations, specially from neoconservatives, ultranationalists, and religious fundamentalists.

    In the case of Chen, he was “rescued” by China-Aid, a Christian fundamentalist group which is funded by the US government and whose anti-abortion views aligned with Chen’s own views on this matter. It is not surprising that hardcore Christians put their religious beliefs above rule of law.

  33. Zack
    May 30th, 2012 at 19:51 | #33

    here’s an example of the US flouting rule of law when it suits their interest: the capture and execution of OBL. Yes, as controversial as that was, OBL should’ve at least been able to have a trial, especially when captured by soldiers of the same state that’s supposed to prize ‘rule of law’ as sacrosanct.
    Note also how belligerent and tyrannical the US becomes when Pakistan enforces their own rule of law and indicts that pakistani doctor for abetting with foreign forces leading to the capture of OBL. Strange how selective the rule of law becomes when it comes to enforcing one’s own imperialist/foreign policy ambitions isn’t it?

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.