1
   

World Condemns Bush for Decline of Human Rights in U.S.

 
 
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 08:35 am
Quote:
Chinese activist 'beaten in jail'

A leading Chinese human rights activist has been severely beaten in jail by other prisoners on the orders of his guards, Amnesty International has said.
Chen Guangcheng was reportedly beaten after he insisted on his right to appeal against his sentence and refused to allow his head to be shaved.

The human rights group said it feared for his life and that he was at risk of further torture and ill-treatment.

Mr Chen was jailed in 2006 for damaging property and disrupting traffic.

But his lawyers said the real reason was Mr Chen's exposure of violations of China's one-child policy, including forced sterilisations and abortions.

Hunger strike

In a statement, Amnesty said Mr Chen had told his wife that after he refused to have his head shaved, "six other prisoners had pushed him to the floor, encouraged by prison guards, and hit and kicked him hard".

Medical treatment was also withheld from him, the group said.

He said he was being punished for 'being disobedient' due to his insistence on filing an appeal to the provincial higher court

Amnesty International

"He has since begun a hunger strike in protest, refusing water as well as food," it added.

"He said he was being punished for 'being disobedient' due to his insistence on filing an appeal to the provincial higher court."

Amnesty said Mr Chen, who is blind, required either the assistance of his lawyer or his wife to help him draft an appeal, but that the prison authorities had refused to let them visit him for longer than 30 minutes per month.

He lost an earlier appeal against his four-year sentence in January.

The London-based group said Mr Chen was a "prisoner of conscience, jailed solely for his peaceful defence of human rights".

"The Chinese authorities must stop the persecution of people who stand up for human rights; as the Olympic Games draw closer, the world will be watching to see whether human rights promises have been honoured. At present they have not," it said.

Mr Chen, 35, has campaigned against what he says are abuses of the Chinese government's one-child policy.

Before being imprisoned, he accused local health workers in Linyi city, in Shandong province, of illegally forcing hundreds of people to have late-term abortions or sterilisations.

China brought in its one-child policy 27 years ago, in a drive to curb population growth, but forced sterilisation and abortion are prohibited.


BBC News
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,018 • Replies: 46
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 09:12 am
You gotta point here, Bubba?

Want some cheese to go with your whine?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 10:02 am
Surely you get the point. Most human rights abuses that occur here, while not acceptable, are infinitessimal compared to what goes on in much of the rest of the world, China being a prime example.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 10:05 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Surely you get the point. Most human rights abuses that occur here, while not acceptable, are infinitessimal compared to what goes on in much of the rest of the world, China being a prime example.


You are right. And this is why we have moral superiority and a mandate for certain of our decisions, whereas China does not. You want us to become like them? No? Then I guess people better keep complaining about things here to keep that from happening.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 10:29 am
Brandon, should we do an examination of the American prison system here? I dont mean Bushie's international torture gulag's. Have you looked into the Texas Youth Commission sex scandal at all? You can start here if you're interested but keep in mind that Texas is just one state and this is a national problem. links
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 10:40 am
I totally agree that such like presented here by Amnesty (via BBC via Brandon) is not acceptable at all aand should be

More than two years ago, a Channel 4 documentaryshowed that human right abuses like those documented in Abu Ghraib were commonplace in the USA's overcrowded and understaffed prisons, btw. (Report)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 01:29 pm
This is, as i suspected was Brandon's purpose, a case of the "Oh Yeah? Well look how bad the other guy is!" type of argument. So, my neighbor beats his children and his wife, every night, with an electric cord (so there won't be marks to implicate him), and does not allow them to eat supper. Does that make acceptable that i should just slap The Girl around casually? Does that excuse abusive behavior on my part? Hardly--just because some clown on the other side of the county has killed his entire family with a shotgun doesn't mean that you can expect to get away with an unintentional act of vehicular homicide.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 01:30 pm
Oh . . . if forgot to add: What a stupid f*ckin' thread.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 02:56 pm
Setanta wrote:
This is, as i suspected was Brandon's purpose, a case of the "Oh Yeah? Well look how bad the other guy is!" type of argument. So, my neighbor beats his children and his wife, every night, with an electric cord (so there won't be marks to implicate him), and does not allow them to eat supper. Does that make acceptable that i should just slap The Girl around casually? Does that excuse abusive behavior on my part? Hardly--just because some clown on the other side of the county has killed his entire family with a shotgun doesn't mean that you can expect to get away with an unintentional act of vehicular homicide.

You can win all the arguments if you misrepresent the other person's position. I've never said the comparison justifies anything, and I don't think that it does. However, what I am saying is not complicated, and I don't see why you persistently misrepresent it. What I have said is that there ought to be some perspective. I don't like to see statements by the left and by people in other countries that seem to imply that the US is among the worst violaters. I don't like to see most of the condemnation directed at us. Human rights abuses in the US shouldn't be accepted, acquiesced to, or allowed, but they are truly infinitessimal compared to those in many, many other countries such as China and Russia.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 03:02 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
This is, as i suspected was Brandon's purpose, a case of the "Oh Yeah? Well look how bad the other guy is!" type of argument. So, my neighbor beats his children and his wife, every night, with an electric cord (so there won't be marks to implicate him), and does not allow them to eat supper. Does that make acceptable that i should just slap The Girl around casually? Does that excuse abusive behavior on my part? Hardly--just because some clown on the other side of the county has killed his entire family with a shotgun doesn't mean that you can expect to get away with an unintentional act of vehicular homicide.

You can win all the arguments if you misrepresent the other person's position. I've never said the comparison justifies anything, and I don't think that it does. However, what I am saying is not complicated, and I don't see why you persistently misrepresent it. What I have said is that there ought to be some perspective. I don't like to see statements by the left and by people in other countries that seem to imply that the US is among the worst violaters. I don't like to see most of the condemnation directed at us. Human rights abuses in the US shouldn't be accepted, acquiesced to, or allowed, but they are truly infinitessimal compared to those in many, many other countries such as China and Russia.


Why didn't you respond to my post?

As an American taxpayer, there are things my voice and my vote can change and things they can't. I have zero ability to affect change upon China. I have a much larger ability to affect change here at home. Which choice is a waste of my time, and which one is productive?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 03:04 pm
The link you posted is from the BBC, btw.

Any idea which US media reported about this and when?
(It'sa theme since quite some time in Europe.)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2007 07:07 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
This is, as i suspected was Brandon's purpose, a case of the "Oh Yeah? Well look how bad the other guy is!" type of argument. So, my neighbor beats his children and his wife, every night, with an electric cord (so there won't be marks to implicate him), and does not allow them to eat supper. Does that make acceptable that i should just slap The Girl around casually? Does that excuse abusive behavior on my part? Hardly--just because some clown on the other side of the county has killed his entire family with a shotgun doesn't mean that you can expect to get away with an unintentional act of vehicular homicide.

You can win all the arguments if you misrepresent the other person's position. I've never said the comparison justifies anything, and I don't think that it does. However, what I am saying is not complicated, and I don't see why you persistently misrepresent it. What I have said is that there ought to be some perspective. I don't like to see statements by the left and by people in other countries that seem to imply that the US is among the worst violaters. I don't like to see most of the condemnation directed at us. Human rights abuses in the US shouldn't be accepted, acquiesced to, or allowed, but they are truly infinitessimal compared to those in many, many other countries such as China and Russia.


Why didn't you respond to my post?

As an American taxpayer, there are things my voice and my vote can change and things they can't. I have zero ability to affect change upon China. I have a much larger ability to affect change here at home. Which choice is a waste of my time, and which one is productive?

Cycloptichorn

Sorry. I didn't respond to your post because I agreed with it.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2007 05:36 am
I believe the dilemma is what is also known as Moynihan's Law:

    [i]The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country.[/i]


It's really just kinda stating the obvious. There will be less complaints about the torture of 10,000 people in a totalitarian regime than about the torture of one single person in democracy that cherishes freedom of speech.

So, is the number of complaints directly proportional to the number of violations? No. Does that mean that because there are more complaints about injustice in a democratic country than about injustice in a tyranny, that those who do the reporting are biased towards the tyranny? No. Does it mean that because violations happen elsewhere, too, that we should stop exerting our influence to stop the violations in our vicinity? Obviously not.


Therefore, I really wonder what were trying to achieve with this thread, Brandon... Did you want to make a point in stating the obvious? Because that's the only, semi-legitimate reason I could come up with as a justification for this thread (and the other one, where you used a similarly disingenuous title).
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2007 06:31 am
old europe wrote:
I believe the dilemma is what is also known as Moynihan's Law:

    [i]The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country.[/i]


It's really just kinda stating the obvious. There will be less complaints about the torture of 10,000 people in a totalitarian regime than about the torture of one single person in democracy that cherishes freedom of speech.

So, is the number of complaints directly proportional to the number of violations? No. Does that mean that because there are more complaints about injustice in a democratic country than about injustice in a tyranny, that those who do the reporting are biased towards the tyranny? No. Does it mean that because violations happen elsewhere, too, that we should stop exerting our influence to stop the violations in our vicinity? Obviously not.


Therefore, I really wonder what were trying to achieve with this thread, Brandon... Did you want to make a point in stating the obvious? Because that's the only, semi-legitimate reason I could come up with as a justification for this thread (and the other one, where you used a similarly disingenuous title).

First of all, I don't need a justification for the thread, and secondly I've already stated my motive, which you've covered well in your post.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2007 07:02 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
First of all, I don't need a justification for the thread, and secondly I've already stated my motive, which you've covered well in your post.


No, you certainly don't need a justification. I also think that it's an interesting topic to discuss.

I was just wondering about the reason for this kind of "false flag attack," particularly as you've done it before. I mean, you could as have titled the thread "Moynihan's Law" or something. As it is, it's got the air of justification for what we are doing about it.

But I guess that kind of provocation was really your point, and you've got a discussion going. So it's probably a good thing. (Even though I have to say that I'm usually drawn to a thread at least as much by the name of the author or the people posting there as by the mere title.)


It's also a good opportunity to point out that people who are discussing American politics on an American internet forum with lots of Americans posting about mainly American politics are not inherently biased against America. That, too, should be kind of obvious, but people are still complaining about it, every now and then.

Not that that's what you stated as a purpose for starting this thread, so it's not really directed at you.


However, what you've said was that you don't like to see most of the condemnation directed at you (as in "the United States"). I don't think that can be helped. America is one of the largest democratic countries. As a direct function of that, a whole lot of criticism will be lobbed at the US whenever America does something wrong.

But still, that doesn't change some basic facts regarding just the criticism of America (without viewing it in relation to the criticism directed at other countries):

- virtually all of the criticism directed at the United States is a result of some wrongdoing by the US
- the more blunders occur, the more criticism you'll get to hear
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2007 08:29 am
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
First of all, I don't need a justification for the thread, and secondly I've already stated my motive, which you've covered well in your post.


No, you certainly don't need a justification. I also think that it's an interesting topic to discuss.

I was just wondering about the reason for this kind of "false flag attack," particularly as you've done it before. I mean, you could as have titled the thread "Moynihan's Law" or something. As it is, it's got the air of justification for what we are doing about it.

But I guess that kind of provocation was really your point, and you've got a discussion going. So it's probably a good thing. (Even though I have to say that I'm usually drawn to a thread at least as much by the name of the author or the people posting there as by the mere title.)


It's also a good opportunity to point out that people who are discussing American politics on an American internet forum with lots of Americans posting about mainly American politics are not inherently biased against America. That, too, should be kind of obvious, but people are still complaining about it, every now and then.

Not that that's what you stated as a purpose for starting this thread, so it's not really directed at you.


However, what you've said was that you don't like to see most of the condemnation directed at you (as in "the United States"). I don't think that can be helped. America is one of the largest democratic countries. As a direct function of that, a whole lot of criticism will be lobbed at the US whenever America does something wrong.

But still, that doesn't change some basic facts regarding just the criticism of America (without viewing it in relation to the criticism directed at other countries):

- virtually all of the criticism directed at the United States is a result of some wrongdoing by the US
- the more blunders occur, the more criticism you'll get to hear

Well, your posts make me feel a bit better, although I'd say that much of the criticism is factually incorrect, and some of it is along the lines of conspiracy theories. I'm sure some of it is valid.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:29 am
Arrest of Christian bookseller focuses attention on China


By Calum MacLeod, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-13-china-bible_N.htm
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:49 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
I've never said the comparison justifies anything, and I don't think that it does. However, what I am saying is not complicated, and I don't see why you persistently misrepresent it. What I have said is that there ought to be some perspective. I don't like to see statements by the left and by people in other countries that seem to imply that the US is among the worst violaters. I don't like to see most of the condemnation directed at us. Human rights abuses in the US shouldn't be accepted, acquiesced to, or allowed, but they are truly infinitessimal compared to those in many, many other countries such as China and Russia.

But you ARE saying the comparison is just. You are saying the outrage against the US should be muted because there are other outrages out there. The rest of the world is saying that China makes no bones about its policies. We've been fighting them for a long time and we have a long time to go. But the US was thought to have evolved to a place where we don't torture people. Maybe there is a hope that there is something to appeal to here, that is they yell loud enough, people of good will will hear and respond. To fall back on an earlier analogy, when you find out the local minister is knocking his wife around, there is going to be a lot of outrage. It doesn't matter that other men do worse to their families. Ministers are held to a higher standard.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:54 am
On September 20, 2001, before a joint session of Congress, President George W. Bush declared, "Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there.... Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." As it turned out, those fateful words ushered in not a concerted worldwide campaign against militant fundamentalism but a wave of repression felt around the globe. Instead of being a standard-bearer for human rights and civil liberties, the United States lowered the bar, creating secret prisons or "black sites," erecting Guantánamo, rationalizing torture and curtailing civil liberties at home. The US-fashioned "global war on terror" (GWOT) was then replicated in country after country, adapting to local circumstances to provide rhetorical refuge for tyrants and forsaking democratic principles. As the articles that follow show, the "war on terror" has been invoked to arrest and torture prodemocracy activists in Egypt, round up street vendors and protesters in El Salvador, rationalize politically motivated assassinations in the Philippines, jail bloggers and censor websites in Thailand and condone military dictatorship in Pakistan. The criminalization of dissent is not new to these places, and it does not always reflect US intervention or security interests. But the "war on terror" is a new paradigm, and it has proven remarkably versatile and severely damaging. While purporting to protect democracy against its enemies, the "war on terror" has become one of them.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20071231&s=forum_intro
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 10:02 am
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » World Condemns Bush for Decline of Human Rights in U.S.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/31/2021 at 02:49:00