cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/56159234
Op-ed by Reza Hasmath, Professor in Political Science, University of Alberta, Canada.
On July 1, China brought into force its Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, converting a decade of Xi Jinping’s doctrine of “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation” into binding law.
Most attention has gone to its domestic machinery: entrenching Mandarin over minority languages, unified state textbooks and “inter-embedded” neighbourhoods engineered to dilute concentrations of Uyghurs and Tibetans among the Han majority. In other words, this is an assimilationist project that’s already far advanced.
The provision that matters most to the world outside China is buried near the end. Article 63 declares that organizations and individuals outside Chinese territory who “undermine ethnic unity” or “create ethnic division” shall be pursued for legal liability.
The Chinese government is therefore asserting, in statute, that its authority follows its critics across oceans into other countries, including Canada, home to some of the world’s largest Chinese, Uyghur and Tibetan diaspora communities. The danger is not that the law reaches across borders. It is what it criminalizes, whom it targets and how it’s enforced.
…
The intimidation inherent in the new law already violates many domestic harassment and foreign interference laws in jurisdictions around the world. Prosecutors, here, should use them against the agents carrying out the coercion, not the exiles who are its victims.
Governments should shut the unlicensed “police stations,” and press Interpol to reject politically motivated notices aimed at diaspora activists.
Governments can also build dedicated channels for those targeted: a clear law enforcement contact, protective guidance for Chinese and minority diaspora communities and training for officers who could mistake transnational repression for an ordinary domestic dispute.
Finally, asylum systems should treat Article 63 as evidence: a statute in which China announces that diaspora advocacy invites retaliation is close to proof of persecution for those seeking to flee.
China has every right to legislate for its own territory and citizens. What it cannot legitimately do, however warmly it speaks of unity, is disregard borders. The task for all nations, Canada included, is to insist, in law and in practice, that borders still exist.
…
Fuck China. Free Tibet.
“in a bid to not be outdone by Israel”
Or the united states tax service
Explain to me how erasure of an ethic identity is not considered ethnic cleansing?
And when you realize you can’t, then explain to me why I, as a citizen of another country, should uphold your law designed to ethnically cleanse your nation within my borders?
Because ethnic cleansing is a shitty euphemism designed by people who wanted an excuse for inaction, not a real thing.
Did you mean ‘genocide’?
When speaking to the oppressor, its best to do so in their language lest your intent be lost in translation or to a knee-jerk rejection based on the implications of a particular term.
The question was not directed to Australians nor to fellow travelers such as yourself, rather to the various operatives of the CCP that are likely monitoring this post.
They’ve yet to reply at the time of this writing… better hurry up Xinne the Pooh, my popcorn is getting cold.
Looks like Pooh’s ass-kisser is too busy arguing semantics in another comment thread. I’m sure they’ll notice you eventually though.
And this is why as a Chinese person I’m too scared to ever visit China. There’s a nonzero chance I’d be detained for my online speech.
Inb4 the ml users start trying to tell me how this is actually very pro-democracy and the highest form of freedom
It’s very funny that the article goes out of it’s way to say like, “The West never does things like this” because it means y’all don’t get to accuse me of “whataboutism.”
The US literally asserts the jurisdiction to bomb any country on earth if a secret, unelected, totally unaccountable domestic court determinines the country is harboring “terrorists,” a nebulus term which has now been expanded to mean anyone who doesn’t like fascism or doesn’t buy things from Israel. “Every western example rests on a defined wrong” is an absolutely insane sentence to write.
The West is just pissy because they want every opportunity to do exactly what the law is restricting: to promote ethnic divisions to create dissent and instability. It’s a pretty standard playbook at this point, though if you live in the kind of delusions where “every Western example rests on a defined wrong” I suppose it’s easy enough to ignore historical examples of that.
"If I don’t have the right to promote racial divisions to undermine class solidarity, then what rights do I even have!?"
It’s very funny that the article goes out of it’s way to say like, “The West never does things like this” because it means y’all don’t get to accuse me of “whataboutism.”
This motherfucker using a whataboutism to explain how HIS whataboutism is immune from being pointed out 🙄🤦🏻
The US literally asserts the jurisdiction to bomb any country on earth if a secret, unelected, totally unaccountable domestic court determinines the country is harboring “terrorists,” a nebulus term which has now been expanded to mean anyone who doesn’t like fascism or doesn’t buy things from Israel. “Every western example rests on a defined wrong” is an absolutely insane sentence to write.
Absolutely correct.
Still doesn’t make the Chinese law just.
to promote ethnic divisions to create dissent and instability.
You know who worry about “dissent and instability” enough to make laws specifically against it?
Tyrants and nobody else.
Do you know which people applaud such laws in spite of not being amongst the powerful people they’re designed to protect?
Tankies, fascists, and other idiots prone to cheer their own oppression. Nobody else.
This motherfucker using a whataboutism to explain how HIS whataboutism is immune from being pointed out 🙄🤦🏻
Lol what?
“Elon Musk is a shithead, that’s why Albania’s space program is the best in the world!”
“But Albania doesn’t have a space program?”
“Whataboutism!”
That’s not how anything works dude lmao. When the author says something blatantly false I’m allowed to call them on it.
You know who worry about “dissent and instability” enough to make laws specifically against it?
Every single government that has ever existed since the dawn of time?
When the author says something blatantly false I’m allowed to call them on it.
Sure. It doesn’t entitle you to whitewash whatever the tyrants you prefer is doing, though.
THAT’S what you did and THAT’S textbook whataboutism.
Then again, it’s pretty naive of me to expect a tankie to not defend the indefensible via a “but the west!” whataboutism deflection.
You guys are just as ridiculous as American Republicans.
Sure. It doesn’t entitle you to whitewash whatever the tyrants you prefer is doing, though.
It kinda does though? The author admits that his criticism would fall apart as hypocritical if the West did similar things, and the reality is that the West does worse things, so it is a pretty spurious criticism.
“Whataboutism” isn’t even a real thing. Random internet people just started saying it one day but it has no logical basis. When looking at criticism of a particular country, obviously it’s relevant whether other countries are doing similar things while only one country gets singled out for it.
For the sake of clarity, would you mind answering whether every government that has ever existed is “tyrannical” by your standards, or whether you think China is in some way exceptional based on something relavent to the article posted? What exactly have they done that is “indefensible,” or do you just mean that government in general is indefensible?
The author admits that his criticism would fall apart as hypocritical if the West did similar things
That’s false, though.
The West committing an injustice doesn’t entitle China to commit the same injustice or another.
“Whataboutism” isn’t even a real thing
Someone relying on whataboutisms to deflect attention away from the misdeeds of their favorite tyrants WOULD say that, yes.
Whataboutism is a real thing and that real thing is a logical fallacy of avoidance of accountability via deflection.
Random internet people just started saying it one day
Nope. That’s grade A horseshit.
The term originated in 1970s Northern Ireland:
1974 letter by history teacher Sean O’Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about “the Whatabouts”, people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy
Hardly "random internet people
but it has no logical basis
That’s the thing: logical is exactly what pointing a whataboutism is.
It’s a tu quoque fallacy used to manipulate the conversation away from a place that makes you uncomfortable by changing the subject to something you’re more comfortable talking about, but which doesn’t justify the thing you’re trying to defend.
When looking at criticism of a particular country, obviously it’s relevant whether other countries are doing similar things while only one country gets singled out for it.
Not relevant to whether or not the particular country is wrong in doing so.
If I was on trial for embezzlement, tax fraud, and defrauding a charity, pointing out that Donald Trump has done all of those things would not be a viable legal defense.
For the sake of clarity, would you mind answering whether every government that has ever existed is “tyrannical” by your standards
Nope, that would require me to take it as a given that your ridiculous strawman argument has merit.
whether you think China is in some way exceptional based on something relavent to the article posted?
This law, which is a Chinese law, is exceptionally oppressive against Uyghurs, Tibetans, Chinese people who speak any of the 9 other Chinese language groups that aren’t Mandarin, and rightfully criticize the Chinese government for anything ever.
The above paragraph is true whether or not any Western nation has passed any similarly oppressive laws.
As for your “singling out” claim, it’s an article about a specific law that’s recently passed and currently being enacted.
That’s not singling out, that’s reporting on current events.
A lot of western disinformation being regurgitated here.
A lot that has been proven to be false quite awhile ago.
https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Friendly_feudalism%3A_the_Tibet_myth
Alright help me out here. Let’s use an example.
A black man comes to a crosswalk and, after checking the road is clear, starts crossing even though he doesn’t have the light. Suddenly, a cop rolls up, sirens blaring, and starts arresting him for jaywalking. While the arrest is ongoing, a white man starts walking across the street without the light and the cop does nothing. The man being arrested says, “This is bullshit! You’re not doing anything about it when he does it!” The cop slams his face against the car and says, “Nice whataboutism, perp. You just committed a tu quoque fallacy. Just because someone else does something bad doesn’t justify your own actions. In fact, I don’t necessarily approve of what he’s doing either. Now let’s get you down to the station, punk.”
Either “whataboutism” is just complete bullshit, or the vast majority of times it’s invoked it’s bullshit. The fact that a rule or criticism is applied selectively is extremely relevant. It’s obvious in my example that the cop is just using the jaywalking as a pretext, but I’m not sure what the victim is supposed to say in that case in response that wouldn’t make him an evil authoritarian tankie fascist, but whatever it is, just assume I said it to you because it’s the same bullshit in both cases.
If I was on trial for embezzlement, tax fraud, and defrauding a charity, pointing out that Donald Trump has done all of those things would not be a viable legal defense.
Yeah, because telling the court it’s full of shit generally isn’t the best legal defense. However, it would demonstrate that the court is not upholding it’s principles consistently. It would be a valid logical and political argument to challenge the court as biased, it’s just not the most practical when the court is the one making the arbitration.
That’s not singling out, that’s reporting on current events.
You might be right. It wouldn’t be singling out, except for the fact that the author specifically does single out China and claim that the West is innocent of similar crimes, which is why I said that calling me out on “whataboutism” would be even more spurious than usual in this case.
China will punish racism as a crime.
But at what cost?!?
being Uyghur is racist? that’s probably the dumbest fucking thing you’ve ever said, and that’s a high bar.
that’s not what I said, but thanks for posting this unrelated article.
But I thought China was a bastion of free speech and other personal freedoms? By how a large portion of people on Lemmy behave you may believe it’s a communist utopia.
I though the west was the bastion of free speech yet they abuse terrorist laws to suppress anti colonization activists and groups or when the protest threaten the system itself
“What about …”
This article and discussion are about China. If you want to discuss the behavior of a different country, start a new post for it.
If you don’t like what i say fuck off. The article mention europe so yes i think my comment is relevant
Your previous comment is pure, transparent whataboutism and brings nothing of value to this discussion.
It would be if it was to deflect from the fact that china do not respect human rights but no i acknowledge it. I am just showing you hypocrites
This is the other popular tactic that is used. Instead of staying on topic we bring up issues in other countries or regions. It’s like when a kid gets in trouble and they go “mom Sally was stealing cookies yesterday”. It’s even more disheartening to watch adults try and play those childhood games.
Don’t expect me to stay on the topic when your comment is off topic in relation to this post. Like usual exposing hypocrisy is treated as whataboutism by bad faith users like you
A comment about China’s stance on free speech is off topic from an article about China looking to persecute for speech it doesn’t like?
What would be an example of an on topic comment then?
The article does not mention any Chinese officials claiming China is respecting free speech. It mentions some western selective care about it, though. And the user I am replying to is just rage baiting
I’m not asking who was quoted as saying what in the article, I’m asking how that comment is off-topic from the article.
This article seems to be about China and it punishing speech. So how does that comment get away from the article so much that it’s off-topic?
Also you may want to re-read what it mentions about Western countries because it’s not talking about their respect of free speech.
Again it is not and it is even more relevant to the comment i replied to.
This article seems to be about China and it punishing speech. So how does that comment get away from the article so much that it’s off-topic?
Why so many idiots keep reading my comments partially. I explained it in my previous comment how.
Then finally the classic “it’s not me it’s you”. I was talking about China, you’re talking about whatever else. I believe your comment is more descriptive of your behaviors than my own.
I am talking about your flagrant hypocrisy it is badnwhen china pretend to care about human rights, it also bad when the west does it
Yeah, that’s you being a hypocrite here because everybody else acknowledges it’s bad when the west does it too, but you can’t be happy until nothing but bad things western countries have done are in focus and there’s silence around the countries you favor. You don’t think equal criticism is fair.
Who said that China is free speech?
Pro China advocates will more so claim that any negative news about china is western fear mongering and incorrect. They won’t ever say directly that China has free speech. They’ll just dance around such subjects with nonsense endlessly and then call in all their buddies to downvote you to hell.
You can post a uncontroversial opinion in the wrong instance and go from 2-3 points to -8 with a paragraph telling you how wrong and stupid you are.
How many of the people operating these unlicensed police stations have been charged and arrested for kidnapping or attempted kidnapping? The people working these are members of an organized crime outfit. They need to be treated as such. Yet whenever I hear of them being shut down, the thugs working them just seem to get deported.
If you’re gonna roll up to a Chinese embassy and start arresting people based on spurious BS and believing your own propaganda, I don’t get why you don’t just say to launch the nukes and try to get first strike. If you’re gonna start WWIII for literally no reason, why not just do it instead of all this bizarre posturing?
Maybe I should just start running a police station out of my house, arresting people on crimes I’ve invented, and imprison them in my basement.
If you’re doing law enforcement with no legal authority, you’re literally just kidnapping people.
I imagine that if you did that, there’d probably be, you know,
evidence.Maybe my neighbor is doing exactly what you said. I guess I should just call in a SWAT team to kick in his door based on that possibility.
You’re just a Republican shouting fake news at stories you don’t like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_police_overseas_service_stations
Republican is when anyone disagrees with you for literally any reason. There are two types of people on planet Earth: people who think exactly the same way as you, huff your farts, and agree with every single word that comes out of your mouth, and Republicans.
God, y’all are insufferable.
Meanwhile, you’re out here actually falling for the same kind of obvious bullshit your Red MAGA counterparts do, but it’s about the evil foreign CCP rather than Planned Parenthood or ACORN so that makes you totally different.
fart noises
These newsites are going manic over china all of a sudden
