China setup its own peace prize

[anon45]

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.

Indeed no two people will think alike, but both will try to make the other see their way anyways.


Do we not see China attempting to force Western countries to adhere to its morals/principles by its reaction to the Nobel peace prize? Embargoing with rare earths? Demanding closure of film festivals for showing controversial content? opening of government run english newspapers to 'give an alternative viewpoint?

All countries are trying to shape the world to better reflect on their morals and principles. Its simply how it is.

Should it happen? Referring specifically to the topic in this case I believe, yes, it should happen, and that the Chinese people (and the world as a whole) would benefit more than with the current suppression of true peaceful opposition to the CCP.

That said it could also be a case of 'be careful what you wish for' if nationalism has such a hold on China in real politics that its spoken of having on the internet, though I don't believe it is so.

 

[CardSharp]

Indeed no two people will think alike, but both will try to make the other see their way anyways.


Do we not see China attempting to force Western countries to adhere to its morals/principles by its reaction to the Nobel peace prize? Embargoing with rare earths? Demanding closure of film festivals for showing controversial content? opening of government run english newspapers to 'give an alternative viewpoint?

All countries are trying to shape the world to better reflect on their morals and principles. Its simply how it is.

Should it happen? Referring specifically to the topic in this case I believe, yes, it should happen, and that the Chinese people (and the world as a whole) would benefit more than with the current suppression of true peaceful opposition to the CCP.

That said it could also be a case of 'be careful what you wish for' if nationalism has such a hold on China in real politics that its spoken of having on the internet, though I don't believe it is so.

Fair point, but I'll ask a simple question. Would there be a Nobel ceremony boycott, without a Nobel prize?

and as for the film festival and introducing English media, I see that as a very practical step that the China has to take, in order not to be painted into a corner and have the world hostile to its point of view. I don't see it as particularly effective, but it's their solution to a very difficult question and I have no doubt they'll find honey catches more flies than vinegar in the future.

I'll raise another point about Liu Xiaobo. If the west really want to be effective at helping China to see that its way is better, it should keep in mind the fundamental aversion of any people in supporting those they see as co-opted by foreign influence. Liu is advocating western and alien ideals in China (and I say alien because he seems to want to do away with China's own culture as backwards) and the US government is directly funding his activities.

See the example of the PLO and Hamas. As soon as the PLO worked out a deal with the Israelis, their popular support immediately collapsed and they were seen as working not for the interest of the people but for the Israelis (whether that is the case is another thing)

 

[Martian2]

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."

Your analogy is absurd.

We have four anti-sedition laws. Each of which is applied somewhat differently.

1. American anti-sedition law: U.S. Smith Act

2. Lese-majete laws: Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, Morocco, Thailand, Kuwait, and Iran. (See Lèse majesté - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

3. Section 39 of India's Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to intimidate intellectuals and non-governmental organizations for sedition

4. China's anti-sedition law

How did you manage to only compare China's anti-sedition law to genocide? How is that comparing apples to apples? You are comparing an apple to a sea worm. They are two completely different things.

Instead, why don't you compare India's Section 39 law to genocide? What's wrong with people? Don't they ever get tired of bashing China and Chinese people?

 

[JayAtl]

what you have here is the commi's trying to equate physical acts of violence to overthrow, which many countries rightfully call unlawful- To a WRITTEN DISSENTING ESSAY! .... with no mention of killing anyone...

 

[anon45]

my brother, it is talking in terms of actions/ physical actions at best and not speech, yeah . AND the right to have militia, a constitutional right, would then be in direct contradiction if it weren't so.

Speech with the intent/ purpose to sow violent action towards the overthrowing of government is considered illegal is what i'm getting at.

As for the militias, I am under the impression that the extreme right ones you are thinking of (the ones training for the 'second revolution' right?) don't advocate comitting violent acts against the government as it is, but against one that has overstepped its bounds (definition of this is unique to each group i'd assume).

Gonna have to call it night

 

[Martian2]

Liu Xiaobo knew the laws in China. If he was unhappy, he could have moved to another country to spread his propaganda.

For example, if you know that it's illegal to threaten the President of the country, you do not continue that course of action in the United States. They will put you in jail. You move to another country where it is not against the law.

Similarly, if you intentionally break the law of the country that you're in, who's fault is that? 1.3 billion Chinese have no problem with the laws as written. One Liu Xiaobo can't follow the laws and he's too obnoxious to emigrate. A political agitator deserves to be imprisoned.

Political agitators in the United States are similarly imprisoned. I do not hear impassioned pleas to free a man who wrote a harmless poem. Many of you anti-Chinese propagandists are hypocrites.

The United States considers a poet to be dangerous. China considers a writer who wants to overthrow the government to be dangerous. One writes a poem and the other writes a manifesto. Two countries with the same view. Where are your calls to free the Kentucky poet?

Activist Post: Man Sentenced To Nearly 3 Years In Prison For Threatening Obama In Poem

"Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Man Sentenced To Nearly 3 Years In Prison For Threatening Obama In Poem
Dylan Lovan
Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Kentucky man who acknowledged threatening President Barack Obama in a poem has been sentenced to nearly three years in prison.

Johnny Logan Spencer apologized for writing the poem, which described a fatal sniper shooting of the president.

The 28-year-old said in federal court in Louisville on Monday that he was upset over his mother's death and had fallen in with a white supremacist group that had helped him kick a drug habit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. called Spencer's writing of the poem an extremely dangerous thing. Spencer will be on supervised release for three years after he completes the 33-month sentence.

The poem, titled "The Sniper," was posted on a website in 2007 and again in 2009 after Obama took office."

 

[LaBong]

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.

Depends on what we consider is an attempt of overthrow the government. Writing online essays or even peaceful protest won't get you any trouble in India.

 

[JayAtl]

Speech with the intent/ purpose to sow violent action towards the overthrowing of government is considered illegal is what i'm getting at.

As for the militias, I am under the impression that the extreme right ones you are thinking of (the ones training for the 'second revolution' right?) don't advocate comitting violent acts against the government as it is, but against one that has overstepped its bounds (definition of this is unique to each group i'd assume).

Gonna have to call it night

later dude, one thing for sure the man in question wrote an essay , with no threats to do bodily harm or violence and what we have here is Chinese living in foreign countries, countries that afford democracy, giving up their citizenship, - and then telling us that we ignore those democracies they ran off to- and agree that this international hero be condemned for writing an essay with no threat of violence.

 

[Numba9hockey]

I admire the Chinese position on the Nobel Peace Prize. I totally agree that the Nobel Peace Prize is only for money and political gain. After Al gore and Obama won it, i lost respect for it and realized what it was. I wish the U.S. would follow suit, but we all know the U.S. won't.

 

[LaBong]

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.

Look, you guys have to stop being judgmental if you want carry on any discussion in a meaningful manner. Please keep your opinion about Indians to yourself, I'm not advocating my opinion about Chinese members here, am I?

The ad hominem attacks only shows the lack of argument to back up your story.

Like I said before, no one questioning the legality of the action, but whether or not writing online pro-democratic essays can be considered as an act of sedition. Show me an instance when UAPA has been applied on anyone protesting anything peacefully in India.

Also how is it an act of sedition when all he seems to be advocating for CPC to compete in an election?

 

[JayAtl]

I admire the Chinese position on the Nobel Peace Prize. I totally agree that the Nobel Peace Prize is only for money and political gain. After Al gore and Obama won it, i lost respect for it and realized what it was. I wish the U.S. would follow suit, but we all know the U.S. won't.

so you did not have a problem with Araft winning it I guess?

would you be okay if George bush was given it next year or how about Ronald Reagan (to be accepted by Nancy) ?

 

[mannamanna]

The CPP ..Confucius Peace Prize or Clown Peace Prize? Since the Chinese Govt seems to call the Nobel committee a bunch of clowns. would seem appropriate to rename the CPP too! What a shame, a P5 nation is seemingly threatened by Norway awarding the NPP to one of its citizens. The lengths to which it has gone to dissuade (threaten is more like it) other countries from attending the ceremony, disallowing its own citizens from travelling and the obvious propaganda in its state controlled media is astounding but to be expected. It has broken off trade relations with Norway ..hopefully Telenor will see the light.

 

[Numba9hockey]

so you did not have a problem with Araft winning it I guess?

would you be okay if George bush was given it next year or how about Ronald Reagan (to be accepted by Nancy) ?

I don't care who would win it, i still don't support it

 

[JayAtl]

really, then you disagree with all the great Americans who won it across the board in the past. Physicist , chemist, biologist hmmm.... till this year china had no issue going to the ceremonies , but you would have protested it in the past years.

lately, we see a new found love for the US flag by the Chinese....

 

[Numba9hockey]

Im an American, Not Chinese. i don't think one person in China nows who Ryan Miller is.

Back on topic: How am i disrespecting people by saying the Nobel Peace Prize isn't what it appears to be. I believe it is for political gain and not a Peace Prize. Tell me one reason why Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? This is why i don't believe in it.