What's new

China setup its own peace prize

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I honestly don't see how this man's actions are deserving of such a punishment and rebuke from the Chinese government. I've read news site throughout the US and Latin America, Al Jazeera and Xinhua and the most they say about him is that he was "mischevious". But is that really worth an 11 year prison sentence? Or even worth so much effort on behalf of the Chinese government?

I don't care what "the law" says. Does the punishment really fit the crime???

The Home Ministry last month warned "civil society groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), intellectuals and the general public" that "supporting the CPI [Communist Party of India - Maoist] ideology" would attract action under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967.

Section 39 of the act states that "any person who commits the offense of supporting a terrorist organization with inter alia intention to further the activities of such groups would be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or with fine or with both".[/COLOR]

Assume that Liu Xiaobo had violated Section 39 of India's law against advocating the overthrow of the Indian government. The punishment of 11 years imprisonment in China is comparable to the "10 years or with fine or with both" that he would have received under Indian law.
 
Assume that Liu Xiaobo had violated Section 39 of India's law against advocating the overthrow of the Indian government. The punishment of 11 years imprisonment in China is comparable to the "10 years or with fine or with both" that he would have received under Indian law.

It's a clear double standard exploited by those without the intellectual honesty to admit it, but don't expect to change anyone's perspective through explanation. People are great rationalizers for their own irrationalities. Indians on this forum are especially adept.
 
correction ,even if one ADVOCATED for a violent over throw of the govt, it is protected as free speech in the US. The tea party openly advocates such and have on plenty occasions in the past. what you can't do is threaten a President but you can advocate about overthrowing the govt , even by violent means and it is protected by the US constitution.

I have this Martin2 guy on my ignore list and don't see any posts attributed to him unless someone quotes him. But know this , he is a hard core anti -US,a Taliban sympathizer, and anything he says I would advise you /ignore.

Liu Xiaobo is a hero to the world, what is shameful is that his family members are also under arrest.

Actually you are right that there is freedom of speech to express your desire of a violent overthrow of government for the average person.
Smith Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said it does not apply to those who can hold greater influence over others (preachers to their 'flock';, teachers to their students, etc as can be told by the wording), and it can not be printed and distributed (though I bet its a gray area and barely enforceable when it comes to the internet).


Basically the government cannot detain/arrest a group advocating violent overthrow as their own opinion, but they definately have the law to arrest someone advocating violent overthrow to a group (of like minded individuals and otherwise).
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if they choose to enforce it these days (never had a run in with the law on this specific matter after all;)), but the letter of the law says otherwise

Smith Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the weight of the words of some random guy do not have the same weight of the words of a say, a politician, a radio host, or a preacher to his/her 'flock'.

I'm fairly sure that would be taken into account on any conviction.

Basically the government may have not chosen to prosecute, but they definately have the law to arrest someone advocating violent overthrow.

Why would they persecute the Tea party movement. It's a corporate controlled populist movement, aggressive lobbying by another means. Besides the Republican I think are in the process of co-opting the Teabagger moment as seen by Rand Paul election on the backs on these "anti-establishmentarians"


Follow the Astro-Turf Money Trail to the Tea Party

Propaganda is a coordinated effort to influence public opinion through the use of media. One of the greatest proponents of propaganda was Adolf Hitler. In Mein Kampf, he wrote:

“All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed…The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses.”

In other words, to be effective, propaganda must be simple and play on human emotions such as fear, anger or resentment – not intellect.

The Tea Party’s anti-government sentiment is being fueled through various astro-turf organizations. Its easy to spread anger, resentment and discontentment with unlimited funds, sometimes from anonymous donors. Sadly, discontentment means disenfranchised voters, and low voter turnout. This is exactly what these conservative front groups are banking on in November’s elections.

The anti-government Tea Party sentiment is being led by organizations like FreedomWorks which claims to advance less government, lower taxes, and more freedom, a very appealing populist message.

But who does FreedomWorks really represent? . . .

Not the average person. The U.K. Guardian reported that Philip Morris funds FreedomWorks.

SourceWatch.org says that FreedomWorks has been described as a “Wall Street front group that helped launch the Tea Party Movement.”

According to SourceWatch, during the health care debates, FreedomWorks began its propaganda campaign to portray an image of mass public opposition to health care through the media. In a leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots detailed how organizers were instructed to infiltrate town hall meetings and harass and intimidate Democratic members of Congress. The memo stated:

“Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up … You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation. Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early. If he blames Bush for something or offers other excuses — call him on it, yell back and have someone else follow-up with a shout-out … The goal is to rattle him.”

The “Tea Party” movement thanks to FreedomWorks and other conservative front groups took its well greased coordinated show on the road.

According to SourceWatch, Tea Party Patriots (TPP) was “initially organized by FreedomWorks” and in 2009, an affiliated off-shoot, the Tea Party Express helped with a public relations blitz around the country.

The Tea Party Patriots website says “Official Grassroots American Movement” with stars above the statement to provide an image of patriotism. But just because the statement is made, doesn’t make it so. This week, Tea Party Patriots announced a $1 million anonymous donation –

Presently other allied astro-turf groups like American Crossroads founded by veteran propagandist Carl Rove, and Crossroads’ affiliate, Crossroads GPS, raised over $32 million to launch media attacks. These groups have not fully disclosed their funding sources.

These propaganda groups prey on human emotions in difficult times. Unfortunately, these front groups have an agenda contrary to the American people at large. The American public is being victimized by elite interests who know how to churn out emotional propaganda – a form of control.

Remember corporations are not people.

by Tracy Emblem

Tracy Emblem is a former Democractic candidate for California’s 50th congressional district and a frequent diarist at FDL’s The Seminal.

I wish our American friend JayAtl would take better care to understand the politics of his own country.
 
Actually you are right that there is freedom of speech to express your desire of a violent overthrow of government for the average person.
Smith Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said it does not apply to those who can hold greater influence over others (preachers to their 'flock';, teachers to their students, etc as can be told by the wording), and it can not be printed and distributed (though I bet its a gray area and barely enforceable when it comes to the internet).


Basically the government cannot detain/arrest a group advocating violent overthrow as their own opinion, but they definately have the law to arrest someone advocating violent overthrow to a group (of like minded individuals and otherwise).

DEAD FREAKING WRONG dude! -- there is no threshold/bar/ professional status that makes a persons " status"- inturn make it a criminal offense period!

your link notwithstanding 1940's law it- is not current and was found to be unconstitutional!
 
It's a clear double standard exploited by those without the intellectual honesty to admit it, but don't expect to change anyone's perspective through explanation. People are great rationalizers for their own irrationalities. Indians on this forum are especially adept.

I agree that many of the Indians on this forum are not intellectually honest.

I have cited the following:

1. U.S. Smith Act

2. Lese-majeste laws

3. Section 39 of India's Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967

All of these laws serve the same purpose as the anti-sedition law in China. And yet, many of the Indian members are not interested in facts and prefer to spread propaganda. There is nothing unusual about China's anti-sedition law. Every country has one. The punishment is also roughly equivalent (i.e. 10 to 11 years).

However, I will desist in posting facts. From this thread, I have learned that most Indians don't care about facts. There is no point in wasting my time.
 
Why would they persecute the Tea party movement. It's a corporate controlled populist movement, aggressive lobbying by another means. Besides the Republican I think are in the process of co-opting the Teabagger moment as seen by Rand Paul election on the backs on these "anti-establishmentarians"


Follow the Astro-Turf Money Trail to the Tea Party



I wish our American friend JayAtl would take better care to understand the politics of his own country.

you're citing the Tea party who I have ridiculed here on multiple occasions. FAIL Card sharp:) --- if you thought to some how associate me with that movement. One thing you will never out do me on - is knowing US politics :D

Tea party and chines immigrants in the US have one thing in common = racists
 
Last edited:
Most of you guys are hopelessly anti-China. You're willing to sacrifice your rationalism and succumb to your emotions.

How simple can this issue possibly be? There are clearly written laws in every country. If a citizen intentionally breaks the law in India, they go to jail. Similarly, if a citizen intentionally breaks the law in China, they go to jail.

Either you guys are too dumb to understand something so simple or your anti-Chinese attitude has overwhelmed your common sense. In either case, I cannot help you. Good luck in becoming sane someday.

If murder or genocide was legalized by law, would that law be a law its own people must deal with? That is an exaggerated comparison, but it strikes the heart of the problem you seem to be avoiding. Just because its law doesn't mean its just, or that it should be kept as law.

Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to give up her seat at the front of a bus not so long ago, and she got jailed.

Liu Xiaobo broke the law by speaking his belief that China should not be ruled by an authoritarian government, that it should have a democratic system.

He was jailed


He did not advocate violent overthrow, in fact he is quite against it. these words are part of an article he wrote, that could unfortunately only appear in the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post (Feb 2010)

"China's political reform should be gradual, peaceful, orderly and controllable and should be interactive, from above to below and from below to above. This way causes the least cost and leads to the most effective result. I know the basic principles of political change, that orderly and controllable social change is better than one which is chaotic and out of control. The order of a bad government is better than the chaos of anarchy. So I oppose systems of government that are dictatorships or monopolies. This is not 'inciting subversion of state power'. Opposition is not equivalent to subversion."
 
If murder or genocide was legalized by law, would that law be a law its own people must deal with? That is an exaggerated comparison, but it strikes the heart of the problem you seem to be avoiding. Just because its law doesn't mean its just, or that it should be kept as law.

Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to give up her seat at the front of a bus not so long ago, and she got jailed.

Liu Xiaobo broke the law by speaking his belief that China should not be ruled by an authoritarian government, that it should have a democratic system.

He was jailed


He did not advocate violent overthrow, in fact he is quite against it. these words are part of an article he wrote, that could unfortunately only appear in the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post (Feb 2010)

"China's political reform should be gradual, peaceful, orderly and controllable and should be interactive, from above to below and from below to above. This way causes the least cost and leads to the most effective result. I know the basic principles of political change, that orderly and controllable social change is better than one which is chaotic and out of control. The order of a bad government is better than the chaos of anarchy. So I oppose systems of government that are dictatorships or monopolies. This is not 'inciting subversion of state power'. Opposition is not equivalent to subversion."

And there you run into the fundamental difficulty with a Law code. It is a system meant to codify moral and principles. We do our best to see that one mirrors the other but sometimes we are dealing with the intangibles. No two people nevermind two countries are likely to agree on everything with regards to morals and principles.

What is contested here is whether one country should force its morals and principles on to another.
 
If murder or genocide was legalized by law, would that law be a law its own people must deal with? That is an exaggerated comparison, but it strikes the heart of the problem you seem to be avoiding. Just because its law doesn't mean its just, or that it should be kept as law.

Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to give up her seat at the front of a bus not so long ago, and she got jailed.

Liu Xiaobo broke the law by speaking his belief that China should not be ruled by an authoritarian government, that it should have a democratic system.

He was jailed


He did not advocate violent overthrow, in fact he is quite against it. these words are part of an article he wrote, that could unfortunately only appear in the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post (Feb 2010)

"China's political reform should be gradual, peaceful, orderly and controllable and should be interactive, from above to below and from below to above. This way causes the least cost and leads to the most effective result. I know the basic principles of political change, that orderly and controllable social change is better than one which is chaotic and out of control. The order of a bad government is better than the chaos of anarchy. So I oppose systems of government that are dictatorships or monopolies. This is not 'inciting subversion of state power'. Opposition is not equivalent to subversion."

dude, Martin 2, the guy you quoted in your post and feel free to verify by checking this posts as recent as in the last 72 hrs - and as a back drop, is a Chinese immigrant in the US who hates the US, while he lives off opportunity it affords him and is a Taliban sympathizer. Simply check his past posting history !
 
Last edited:
DEAD FREAKING WRONG dude! -- there is no threshold/bar/ professional status that makes a persons " status"- inturn make it a criminal offense period!

your link notwithstanding 1940's law it- is not current and was found to be unconstitutional!

The cases it was used for were thrown out as unconstitutional, but the law itself is very much still on the books.

I was indeed wrong that only the creators/ leaders of groups could be prosecuted under this law, and that those who use their status to individually spread their views to a vulnerable group could be prosecuted (by the strict letter of the law that i've seen, as a single individual is not considered a 'group')

"Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof "

The law doesn't need to be currently enforced, it is there for when the government chooses to enforce it.
 
Last edited:
dude, Martin 2, the guy you quoted in your post and feel free to verify by checking this posts as recent as in the last 72 hrs - and as a back drop, is a Chinese immigrant in the US who hates the US, while he lives off it's opportunity it affords him and is a Taliban sympathizer. Simply check his past posting history !

Guess you missed the part about his brother being an Army Ranger. Attack the argument not the man.
 
And there you run into the fundamental difficulty with a Law code. It is a system meant to codify moral and principles. We do our best to see that one mirrors the other but sometimes we are dealing with the intangibles. No two people nevermind two countries are likely to agree on everything with regards to morals and principles.

What is contested here is whether one country should force its morals and principles on to another.

OMG!! - You seem to think that just because you communist create law its becomes an acceptable human right. do you not get that you guys can't dissent vocally or in an essay, and where today every Chinese here on these forums_ are the rulings party's mouthpiece?
 
Last edited:
Guess you missed the part about his brother being an Army Ranger. Attack the argument not the man.

never saw it because i have him on Ignore and don't believe it. why? because that would mean he would call his brother a murderer too... The guy hates the US, hates the US military and is selling you the bag of chips about his brother being in the US army? LOL , yeah !

But, I 'm sure since he fits your meme and is Chinese, so it must be true! just like your countries perceived

"he advocated a violent over throw of the govt" bull, you think is true and hence want the rest of us to go along and buy here .
 
Last edited:
The cases it was used for were thrown out as unconstitutional, but the law itself is very much still on the books.

I was indeed wrong that only the creators/ leaders of groups could be prosecuted under this law, and that those who use their status to individually spread their views to a vulnerable group could be prosecuted (by the strict letter of the law that i've seen, as a single individual is not considered a 'group')

"Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof "

The law doesn't need to be currently enforced, it is there for when the government chooses to enforce it.

my brother, it is talking in terms of actions/ physical actions at best and not speech, yeah . AND the right to have militia( against the govt. and which is inherently armed), a constitutional right, would then be in direct contradiction if it weren't so.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom