The Shotgun Blog
« Doing what the whiteman says | Main | Terrorists: Please return in 15 minutes when the Mountie with the gun returns from his coffee break. Thank you. »
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Global 24-hour anti-Communist hunger strike to start Sunday at 9PM EST
Yesterday, the good folks at the Epoch Times announced a 24-hour hunger strike, beginning at 9 PM Eastern Standard Time tomorrow (Sunday, March 5). The parent organization relayed the call, and CSN founder John Patrick is in. So am I. It will be my second hunger strike.
The purposes of our strike are to express the following demands to the Chinese Communist Party:
"1. Immediately and unconditionally release all the people who have been secretly abducted and are illegally detained, including Wen Haibo, Ouyang Xiaorong, Ma Wendu, Hu Jia, Yan Zhengxue, Yang Zaixin, and Qi Zhiyong.
2. Immediately and unconditionally release all the writers, journalists and political dissidents who are illegally incarcerated, including Hu Shigen, Wang Bingzhang, He Depu, Zheng Enchong, Yang Jianli, Huang Jinqiu, Shi Tao, Zhang Lin, Yang Tianshui, Zheng Yichun, Xu Wanping, Li Zhi, Zhao Yan, Cheng Xiang (also spelled as Ching Cheong), Qin Yongmin, Luo Yongzhong, Cai Lujun, Xu Wei, Yang Zili, Jin Haike, Zhang Honghai, Yu Huafeng, Li Minying, Ye Guozhu, Cai Zhuohua, Feng Bingxian, Li Yuanlong.
3. Immediately end the illegal and atrocious seven year persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. Immediately and unconditionally release all people who are illegally incarcerated for their beliefs, including Christians and Catholics. Immediately restore the rights of the human rights lawyers who were deprived of their right to practice their legal profession. These lawyers include Zheng Enchong, Gao Zhisheng, Guo Guoting, and Yang Zaixin."
For those who are unaware, a Relay Hunger Strike for Human Rights Support Group has been conducting staggered strikes for nearly a month now, at the urging of Group founder and human rights attorney Gao Zhisheng (sixth, tenth, fifth, lead, third, last, twelfth, eighth, third, second, third, eighth, eleventh, eighth, fourth, fourth, last, fourth, fifth, twelfth, fifth, second, lead, next to last, seventh, last, next to last, lead, second, last, sixth, tenth, and eighth items), who has been under constant surveillance and harassment from the Communist regime for months. In fact, the cadres detain ed Gao for two hours today (Sound of Hope via Epoch Times). Meanwhile, the regime also announced an increase in military spending of over 14% (BBC).
Now, this will be different from my last hunger strike; during that one, I only invited folks in the Greater Washington DC area to join. This time, I'm expanding the invitation to include anyone who regularly receives this post (i.e, China e-Lobby members), anyone who regularly follows this blog or the Shotgun, and well, anyone else who doesn't have a closer connection to the folks at the Epoch Times.
If you wish to join the hunger strike, you have one of two options: either e-mail me, or make your intentions known in the comments section of this post. All who wish to have their names announced will have them included in tomorrow night's post when I announce the beginning of the hunger strike. Therefore, you need to let me know by 8:30 PM Eastern Standard Time on Sunday, March 5.
If you happen to know anyone who would be interested in joining us, please feel free to e-mail them this post or the link thereto. Additionally, I hereby explicitly permit fellow bloggers to reprint the China e-Lobby version of this post to maximize publicity (I don't think I can permit Shotgun reprints).
I end this post with the same words I used to end the last hunger strike post: Gao, the epicenter of the democratic world has heard you, and it stands with you tonight.
Cross posted to the China e-Lobby
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 4, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834ae37a169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global 24-hour anti-Communist hunger strike to start Sunday at 9PM EST:
Comments
Communists don't give a rat's ass for hunger strikes. Such 'tactics' are only effective with liberal democracies.
Communists invented planned famines killing millions to advance their idea of a utopian society.
Did the buddhists who doused themselves with petrol and self-immolated in Saigon during the Vietnam war have more influence with Hanoi or Washington?
Pacifist demonstrations are possible only in democratic societies, therefore effectively they favour only the cause of the tyrant.
The better path is to execute an armed invasion of a Communist outpost and declare it free of socialism.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-04 7:59:09 PM
Holy jumping Jesus! Why didn't you think of that sooner! Maybe you should try it with the Islamofacists as well. Their reasonable people, I'm sure they will bow to your every demand!
My goodness, are you people for real? All I can say is, you have good luck with that okay.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-04 9:29:27 PM
What good will this do... more food left for the commies? How about a boycott of PRC products. Or maybe cut em off our oil supply. The only way to effectively remove a communist regime is to economically destabilize them, then help the people overthrow the government, like in Europe. I can see the internet helping organize a movement in China, but there needs to be more effort to bypass the Great Firewall of China.
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-03-04 9:33:26 PM
How *dare* you suggest that we tackle China's problems without mentioning war once! This is the Shotgun blog, and conservatives in North American have always supported more war!
Except for all those conservatives in the past who felt war was the number one creator of big government, increasing taxes and regulation, waste, and corruption.
Posted by: OldConservative | 2006-03-05 12:53:02 AM
For the social conservatives and neo-conservatives that populate the Shotgun blog to participate in this hunger strike is not only disingenuous but hypocritical. Case in point, China e-Lobby only opposes China's human rights abuses because of its role in helping America's enemies in the war on terror. (Sort of like Saddam being in cahoots with Osama...)
Supporting the war on drugs (part of the war on terror according to the Yanks), aggressive military invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq), holding and torturing prison without fair trial (Guantanamo), the Patriot Act, and then turning around and pointing the finger at China...
The kettle may be more black (i.e. China may be significantly more tyranical), but that does excuse the pot (i.e. Canada, the United States, and the rest of the West).
This plea to join the hunger strike had the fetid odor of immorality.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-03-05 2:23:07 AM
OldConservative,
So you mean to say that if someone came over to your house and started beating the crap out of you and your family that you wouldn't call the cops on the grounds that they soak up tax money?
Robert,
That's pretty funny. Maybe you could provide evidence of torture at Guantanamo, or abuses under the Patriot Act, or explain how much punishment you would have endured before aggressively invading Afghanistan and Iraq. There's a fetid odo(u)r in here alright, but it's not coming from any hunger strikers.
Posted by: surly | 2006-03-05 4:14:05 AM
Astonishing. What can one say to a suggestion such as posted by China e-lobby?
Are you seriously suggesting that a nation ought to make decisions based on the agenda/desires of a number of citizens of other countries who go on a 24 hour fast (one cannot call it a 'hunger-strike) and, on that basis, insist that this country carry out X-plus actions?
Is that how decisions ought to be made? Let's compare. I am going to remove the definition of 'illegal' (e.g. 'illegal and atrocious persecution' for that is an interpretation that cannot stand legal scrutiny. China has banned Falun Gong (whether/not you agree with this ban) and therefore, it is illegal. Canada/US have, for example, banned polygamy (so far) and therefore, a Muslim in another country who can have four wives could assert that charging/jailing practioners of polygamy is also 'illegal and atrocious persecution'. Should Canada/US make their decisions about the definition of marriage - based on the assertions of these Muslims in other countries? If those people go on a 24-hour hunger strike, should we release from jail those individuals jailed for polygamy?
But- I'm just focusing on due process. What I find astonishing is the view of China e-lobby that a nation ought to define and carry out its national policies based on the assertions and actions of non-nationals.
Should Canada define its laws, not by its own legislation and the will of its people, but, by virtue of the will of others. That can be argued both ways. The easiest is national sovereignty which still exists and would reject this behaviour as intrusive. The more complex is the reality of globalization, where we have come to recognize that there are international standards of ethics and morality. We do not yet, by any means, have such shared global standards. It is legal in Iran to stone women to death, kill homosexuals.
But - since we are in a global world, and are aware of these different social standards - then, how do we, recognizing our common humanity, comment on them?
A fast???? A 24-hour fast?? What government is going to make a decision based on such action? What government OUGHT to make a decision based on such action? In my view - no government ought to react. That is not how decisions should be derived.
If you object to the laws and norms of a country, then - in my view - you do not do something as juvenile as 'refusing to eat for 24 hours'. You go through due process. You write to your congressman/Member of Parliament. You write articles. You blog articles. That is - you attempt to PERSUADE the majority in your country and other countries of the validity of your argument. This persuasion is by data, logic, evidence, analysis. This majority, in your country and other countries, moves to the Country-in-Question..and then, they can make their decision - to accept Other-Majority or Not.
BUT - to insist that a government (or anyone, even an individual) carry out your desires because you refuse to eat???? Even a four year old is smarter than that.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-05 9:45:37 AM
I tried engagement versus fasting. But that didn’t seem to work ….
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/03/the_news_of_the.html
I still think that China’s history of trading with the world will help pull off its transition to a middle class population that “owns stuff” and is protected by laws that are enforced by police with authority … that is the solution.
So engagement!
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-05 9:58:34 AM
China has a past of disorder. I kind of hope somehow it will shift towards democracy.
I think some positive way should be encouraged.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-03-05 11:37:26 AM
Remi- every country has a 'past of disorder'.
My point is the absurdity and even moral arrogance, of expecting a country to change its statutes because you, somewhere else, fast for a day.
Large nations try this 'tantrum exercise' also. N. Korea says that it will 'develop nuclear weapons' if the West doesn't provide it with food and supplies. Iran is saying - If you take us to the UN security Council, we'll develop nuclear weapons'.
But - for individuals to actually expect a nation to develop or change its legal/political statutes because some individuals elsewhere, fast for a day - ......unreal. In Canada, I'd say it's a sign of Living in the Cave. In the US, I'd say it's a sign of Stuck on Stupid.
If, If, you feel that the legal/political/social statutes of X-country are irrational, amoral, unethical etc...then, there are several procedures.
1) You must convince a reasonable majority that these statutes are indeed, on global standards, unethical and amoral. You do this convincing, not by a 24 hour fast, but by communication of facts, reason, analysis, evidence. What you are seeking is a 'critical threshold' when a reasonable percentage accept this conclusion of yours.
2)Then - you, with this critical percentage, seek to change that nation's behaviour. Let's say that they are engaging in a form of apartheid - where citizens of different cultures or religions or skin colour or...have different political values and rights in the society. This goes against the global declaration of human equality.
So- you and other nations (since you have a critical threshold)..discuss this problem with that nation's gov't. They refuse to change.
3) You then have further options.
a) You seek to open up the country and change its mode of behaviour, from 'the Bottom Up'. That is, you change the perspective of the ordinary citizen, not the gov't. You do this by communication. Trade, tourism, economic networks, financial networks, scientific networks. You set up a network between your world and their world such that you have effectively created a Larger Set..made up of your world and their world..that interacts and bonds the two together.
Before you, and they, know it - their perspective has changed..and their gov't will follow that perspective.
b) Along with tactic a, you might have to introduce Sanctions - which is a refusal to communicate, network, etc...But, the refusal to communicate, network..only works when the other country requires and needs such interaction.
c)You declare war. This is The Last Option. It's a Top Down tactic. It means that all other means of getting that nation to change - have failed...and that its behaviour is effectively, a 'crime against humanity'. You change its structure, by force, because there is no other way. This was the case with the Taliban, with Iraq, with Nazi Germany.
So - in a normal circumstance, you begin with Tactic A. You might have to use Tactic B. The Last Resort is Tactic C.
But - a 24 hour fast???
And - I have my doubts about the Falun Gong.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-05 12:00:22 PM
Well well. Normally, I wouldn't stop for more than two words (pompous jackass) about ET, the writer. However, the original post involves matters of third parties, and for the benefit of onlooking readers, I can make a reasoned critique that adds perspective (and respect) that is missing in ET's posts.
First--the decision to hunger strike is that of the Chinese pro-democracy movement. ET might like to fault "nitwit Canadians" for a harebrained matter, but even that would be a faulty view of the matter. This call went from the Chinese movement to the China e-Lobby, an American unit that is a bona fide participant in the movement, before it came to be posted here.
So--who is ET taking exception with? At the core of the matter, this is the rant of ET against an attorney in Beijing, named Gao Zhisheng. Americans and perhaps Canadians will hunger strike in sympathy, and that is a show of support in a cause--Chinese democracy--that is favored on their part.
I've got to return to saying, it is an ignorant rant of ET, attempting to tell the Chinese democracy movement how to run its business. This action was called on by genuine Chinese people who are genuinely persecuted. People around the world have already "punched the ticket" of attorney Gao and of this tactic specifically.
So, most of the rant really doesn't apply -- "oh the naivety, oh the silliness of the lone Canadian who would change China." It doesn't apply because this is not about a lone Canadian.
It is also disrespectful in the middle of the rant (as if we weren't tipped off by "Living in the Cave" and "Stuck on Stupid") where ET mentions that you convince "not by a 24-hour fast, but by communication..." because ET is clearly not informed, not aware, or not respectful of the fact that China e-Lobby, and this movement overall, have done vast amounts of publishing that build the intellectual case for the Chinese dissidents' perspective. That ground work has already been laid; the reasoned case is quite well documented on the public record, and China e-Lobby has a distinguished place in doing exactly that in Washington.
But, ET went off prematurely, with hackles up, and a style of argument that is very ad-hominem --as if there is need to attack and belittle what s/he disagrees with. China e-Lobby didn't just fall off of a lemon truck.
Posted by: JPK | 2006-03-05 3:01:29 PM
JPK - get your fallacies straight.
I didn't 'ad hominem' anyone; that would be valid if and only if I had denigrated the personal attributes of the poster. I didn't: I rejected their argument as naive and specious - and I continue to do so. Their argument is naive and specious.
Again, a 'hunger strike' or rather, a 24 hour fast does nothing for anyone. It does nothing for an individual, for an ideology. Nothing.
I said nothing about an attorney in Beijing; therefore, your assertion that I 'ranted' against this individual is false.
Why should I respect the China e-lobby? Just because it 'is' the China e-lobby? That's hardly a reason. It has every right to analyze, and publish - and I have every right to critique.
You may indeed have 'vast amounts of publishing', - that doesn't mean validity or anything other than, that you have 'vast amounts of publishing'.
Again- a 24 hour fast is, in my view, specious and irrelevant.
And, I disagree with your analysis of the situation in China. I don't think it is as simple or as reductionist as you (and China e-lobby) maintain. That there are human rights abuses in China is without question; I question your analysis of their causality and your tactics of dealing with them.
xiexie nin.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-05 3:28:51 PM
I know! Lets all hold our breath in support of the pro-democracy movement in China.
That'll show the commie fascists in Beijing who's boss. Boy when people imagine me blue in the face they're just going to pee themselves with support and everything will be peachy in Tibet when China lets them go free.
/sarcasm
"Power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Mao Zedong
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-05 3:29:55 PM
Hey Surly,
Here's some proof.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/04/tunnel_US060304.html?ref=rss
Go steal the children and property of some drug users. But that's not an abuse of anti-terror legislation, right? All terrorist legislation is being used against common criminals by armed bureaucrats (i.e. cops).
As for torture at Guantanamo, I guess we should look at Abu Garib and the administration's memos approving torture and their refusal to deny the use of terror as legitimate in press conferences...
And vis a vis your comment to Old Conservative, America beat up the neighbours first by intervening in their affairs. 9-11 is what happens when you don't mind your own business. Kind of like how intervening in the economy creates poverty.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-03-05 6:18:56 PM
The power of this International Hunger Strike cannot be ignored. Just take a look at Gandhi's past history...that says it all. Free speech is what the CCP fears the most...the hunger strike does just that -- it gives the Chinese a voice in an attempt to seeking liberation for themselves. It is common knowledge that Chinese people hate the Party that has persecuted them for the last 56 years. They have killed over 80 million people. Picture this--finally the Chinese people have a means of expressing themselves through the hunger strike and officially quitting the Party. Things they are "a changing".
I think this calls for a celebration in support of democracy. This freedom movement appears fragile but it is not--Chinese people are ready to die for this cause. This is about everything we take for granted in the West, i.e., freedom of press, freedom of belief, freedoom of speech...the list is endless. I think it's not too late to hold Communist dicators responsible for their crimes against humanity instead of rewarding them with hosting the Olympics.
Posted by: makina | 2006-03-05 7:25:41 PM
As JPK mentioned, the strike is in solidarity with the pro-democracy activists within China who have been doing it for over a month.
While I haven't been on this blog very long, the China e-Lobby is nearly six years old, and we advocate a good deal more than fasting to win this, the Second Cold War, although I can understand folks nnot familiar with me being a little confused.
Posted by: China e-Lobby | 2006-03-05 7:27:43 PM
I might also add (with apologies for forgetting to mention it earlier) that the Commies are arresting any hunger striker they can find. If it scares them that badly, it must have some power.
Posted by: China e-Lobby | 2006-03-05 7:39:01 PM
"OldConservative,
So you mean to say that if someone came over to your house and started beating the crap out of you and your family that you wouldn't call the cops on the grounds that they soak up tax money?"
What are you talking about? I never said anything that would indicate that. China has not attacked us, so the use of state force for self-defense doesn't even belong in this discussion.
Posted by: OldConservative | 2006-03-05 9:34:33 PM
You know, one would expect more support on this forum for the hunger strike. It's better than shutting up and not bringing up these issues at all. True, it won't achieve immediate change but at least the issues are kept alive and, if more people take up the cause, it will cause some degree of embarassment to the Communist Party. The Chinese government doesn't like embarassment - they want to project some degree of positive spin internationally about their governance. Anything that makes even the slightest dent in that is worthwile.
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-03-05 9:37:37 PM
How about picket a Walmart against China? They love to sell Canadians third rate Chinese made textiles that become threadbare or have the buttons falloff off in very short time.
Boycott Chinese food establishments or other businesses in Canada that don't have half of the staff consisting of other races.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-05 10:02:10 PM
Speller,
Actually, you can be a little more sophisticated than that. What with market research and inventory data-tracking, most retailers (especially the big ones like Walmart) will notice if Made in China stuff won't sell. "Label shopping" can be very effective (if more widespread).
As for "Chinese food establishments," you want to make sure you're not punishing anti-Communist entrepreneurs. Most Chinese restaurants down here, for example, offer Chinese-language newspapers. If the restaurant includes the Epoch Times among the papers offered, it's a good place to have a meal.
Posted by: China e-Lobby | 2006-03-05 10:41:15 PM
It isn't punishing Chinese entrepreneurs(excuse my french) if they are boycotted for not having 50% non-Chinese staff.
Picketing WalMart is better than simply not buying Chinese products because most WalMart products are Chinese and there would be no reason to enter the store.
Where I live (in the Calgary area) one of the few four lane roads was constructed leading to WalMart and nothing else.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-05 11:11:08 PM
I completely disagree with this 'hunger strike'..which is not a hunger strike but merely a one day fast. Irrelevant.
There is no comparison with Ghandi, for that was taking place within India and not internationally,..and..was against both the British gov't presence and the Indian gov't (particularly its caste system). The British were ready to leave and the caste system has lessened but it's still there.
The Chinese gov't can't arrest someone for not eating for a day. Lots of people do that for any reason at all, i.e., self-purification.
The transition from a peasant agriculture to industrialism took place in the West over a period of about 400 and more years - and cost the West at least the same number of lives as the transition in China within one generation. It is naive to think that infrastructural changes are not costly, both in terms of loss of population and 'crimes against humanity'. Infrastructural changes are - extremely costly. One could analyze this in terms of energy-dissipation and organization.
The Chinese people, for the most part, ignore the Party and its rules. A one day fast doesn't express anything.
I completely agree with having the Olympics in Beijing; China wants to 'fit in' with the globe and exposing itself and its people to others is a major step to enabling it to move out of a centralist communist gov't. The Internet is also extremely important..as is international trade..and international scientific research.
China e-lobby - you've set up your blog, with your agenda - and - all the best to you! I don't agree with your (and Epoch's) focus on Taiwan - I think mainland China is not going to revert to ROC rule and any agenda that considers Taiwan the 'real' gov't of China is, in my view, doomed to fail.
I don't agree with your focus on Falun Gong; I think it's indeed a cult.
And, I don't agree with your view of China's communism. I'm against communism because I'm against any collectivist gov't (including fascism, theocratic gov't etc)..but, I think that communism was a tactic to switch a massive population in one generation from one economic to another economic mode. After that - it becomes dysfunctional..and will be dropped. (None of this is conscious behaviour!).
I see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart stores. They don't sell bogus products; they sell what works..otherwise, they'd lose customers. I admit to not understanding why some people are against stores such as Wal-Mart. They work. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-06 7:04:09 AM
ET "what's wrong with that?" ; is that they aren't unionized. The reason for the politics against Wal-Mart stores is what you saw in Quebec. The Unions. Even Bouchard has figured out the danger that unions are to the advancement of Quebec. Which brings us back to globalized, connected economies and currencies and imports from China
The left-wing Democrats love to play the China card to appease their unionized special interest groups. There is a strong pull from the unions to build a protectionist tariff wall. The Democrats don’t care about strategies to democratize China and to make the world safer. The Pat Buchanan, isolationist wing of the GOP are no better.
Meanwhile, like farmers all over the world, the Chinese farmers may hold the keys to what happens next. That is fascinating for the Toronto Annex crowd that thinks the world has already movedOn from an industrial age to a knowledge-based economy in a post-modern world. I have to admit, it is confusing sometimes.
But this is where Canada could actually play a useful role as a grown up country in a messy geopolitical world. Surprisingly our Embassy in Beijing is impressive as are our representatives in it. It’s a very large compound with many of the staff living on campus for several reasons, not least of which is security. I think that Canada actually has the wherewithal to make a statement about China. All we need is the courage and agreement on what that statement should be.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-06 8:02:07 AM
Thanks, nomdenet - I see that 'the problem' with Wal-Mart is that it isn't unionized. I'm against unions.
Unions had an important role to play in the 19th and early 20th century, but have now become massive corporations in themselves, that are completely parasitic on the workers and destructive of the economy. They produce nothing, their income comes directly from the wages of the workers - and their goal is to increase their income by increasing those wages. The economic effect - an increase in all costs, and an inability to save and invest - seems to be irrelevant to them.
I see what you mean by the unions building a protectionist tariff wall. The left/unions seem to think that any non-unionized business 'exploits' the workers. When, it is actually the other way around - the unions exploit the workers.
I'm also sceptical of the 'love for Taiwan'(ROC) and rejection of China (PRC). Don't these people recognize that the Republic of China gov't in Taiwan was a one-party rule, centralist, heavy-handed and only recently has moved into a valid democratic governance?
As for the 'knowledge-based economy', I know that this phrase is a buzz-theme among the intelligentsia. I have to admit puzzlement - aren't all economies based on knowledge?
I think they are trying to say that economic interactions are based more on symbols than actual products and that the transformation of these products is also carried out extensively by symbol manipulation...
As for what Canada could do - hmm. Trade, most certainly because that 'entangles' the populations and ideas and modes of behaviour are thus enabled to interact.
Accepting their investment - yes. But, everything has to be open, transparent, according to rule. Our insistence on disclosure is important, for that sets up a democratic mindset and mode.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-06 8:26:41 AM
So more observations.
I’m very suspicious; I think that the unions are backing the bash-China movements. BTW, I think it’s fine to bash commie thugs but let’s be careful not throw the long march to democracy out the window too.
Ironically the Taiwanese business people are heavily invested in Mainland China. It’s a case where the political rhetoric about the 750 PRC missiles pointed at Taiwan are in fact counter balanced by the inter-dependency of commercial interests, which is a good thing. Can politics and the military regime of the PRC ever trump the commercial relationship? Sure. But it’s like our trade with China, inter-dependency makes the situation safer.
The knowledge-based economy while fuzzily defined, I think it’s political significance is that unlike resources or plant factories, knowledge based people are like financial capital, they can put themselves out to the highest bidder regularly. Therefore we are all becoming free agents (especially the next generation) even if employed by a big corporation. We are all essentially self-employed with portable pensions in RRSP’s etc. That’s a good thing because it means neither unions nor corporations have us trapped, provided we keep our skill sets up to date. Nor do Liberals have us trapped. We can take our degrees and move south of the 49th, if we are prepared to earn more after tax money to pay for Health Care and thus be prepared to be treated like a Health Care customer instead of a burden on the system. But I digress.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-06 9:08:54 AM
Canadian Ignorance about CCP
In my understanding this hunger strike is not to get the Chinese communist party (CCP) to do anything. I don’t think the organizers are that stupid. Rather it is to raise awareness to the international community of the real threat of the CCP not only to Chinese citizens but to North America and as I read these comments on this blog I cannot believe how ignorant seemingly educated people are to this situation.
For the last few years it was the CCP that was trying to buy up billions of dollars of our resources and technology when in December the head of Phoenix TV (a CCP influenced TV station who our CRTC and ROGERS welcomed with open arms) was arrested for espionage in the U.S.
Today the CRTC is again in process of looking over an application to allow 9 communist party TV channels into Canada that are famous for spreading hatred and fanatic communist ideals over its air waves. Due to Rogers influence they may just get it.
It was reported that the CCP has deployed over 1000 spies into Canada posing from business people to students.
A National Post article detailed the wide spread and systematic threatening of our government officials from federal to city level to side with the CCP mandate on issues like Tiawan, Tibet or Falun Gong or face trade sanctions, and some of the spineless comply.
A following Globe and Mail article detailed the extensive control the CCP has over Chinese communities here in Canada where people can be rallied in the guise of “Canadian Chinese Communities” to eliminate any voice seen as a threat to the CCP here in Canada and due to this many have been attacked right here.
Just last month an IT specialist for the Epoch Times was attacked in his home tied up slashed and beaten by three Chinese men. The only thing stolen was his computer tower.
And lets not forget the spread of SARS that, because of the CCP coverup, killed 40 Canadians.
The CCP is a totalitarian regime with absolute power that is accustomed to doing as it pleases. It is responsible for the estimated killings of more than 80 million of its own people during its 60-year rule. It has blocked all uncensored media from entering China. It has through its own media rallied hyper-nationalism and allegiance to the CCP. And it is under no obligation to answer for its actions. And now they are seriously undermining Canadian sovereignty for their own selfish and evil desires.
The only time we have seen the CCP jump was when we publicly condemned them for their cover up of SARS. The only thing they react to is the threat of loosing face. Awareness to the CCP is like a light bulb that scares away the cockroaches. When the light comes on the cockroaches scatter.
I support the Epoch Times in its quest for bringing more awareness to this very real monster and I invite all the arm chair critics who sit comfortably in front of their computers to stop casting judgment on people who are trying their best to make a difference and focus your energy on the real demons, the CCP.
It all comes down to protecting our sovereignty and the lives of people just like you no matter how small or insignificant you think it might be.
It was martin Luther King who stated, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period ... was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
Posted by: Xiong | 2006-03-06 9:26:12 AM
bu hen hao, Xiong - Not very good.
How does a one day fast raise awareness about anything? It does nothing, in my view.
You state that the CCP is investing in Canada? Don't you mean the PRC? So is Saudi Arabia, so is the USA, so are other countries. So?
It is not, to my understanding, the Communist Party of China that is doing the investing, but the PRC. They are not identical; to equate the two would be akin to saying that when the US invests in Canada, it is actually 'the Republican Party' that is investing in Canada.
And furthermore, there is no correlation between China's investing in Canada and the 'head of Phoenix TV'. What's your point? What's the link?
Your assertion that these "9 communist party channels that are famous for spreading hatred and fanatic communist ideals"..is ungrounded. Proof? And that doesn't mean that they will be a propaganda arm, here, for 'communist ideals'.
Your 'it was reported' (passive tense)about the 1,000 spies is also ungrounded. And, business spies are everywhere.
Please provide proof of the 'widespread and systematic threats' made to all levels of Canadian government officials by the CCP. Provide proof of the trade sanctions threatened and the official's compliance. [Note- you say that it is 'spineless' to comply; but, wouldn't it be equally 'spineless' of the CCP to comply with western threats against China?]
Extensive control by the CCP over the Chinese community here? Please provide proof.
The IT Epoch attack can/cannot be attributed directly to the CCP. Speculation is not proof. It could just as easily have been someone who opposed their support for Taiwan, for the Falun Gong, and against China...or..for personal reasons unrelated to any of the above.
SARS was indeed an error of openness but such is hardly due to the CCP. Africa, for instance, refuses to acknowledge the majority of its AIDS cases. In Africa, cause of death is usually attributed to the proximate cause (eg pneumonia)rather than the basic cause (AIDS).
You cannot equate the current capitalist mode of China with the totalitarian mode of Mao. What's your agenda? Punish Mao? Hmmm. End the CCP? That will come with increased capitalism, trade, interaction.
Totalitarian? That's heavily diminishing - and surely you are aware of that.
'Undermining Canadian sovereignty'???? What are you talking about?
I don't support the Epoch Times - for its focus, in my view, seems to be more in support of Taiwan as 'the legitimate government'. I also am highly suspicious of Falun Gong.
What's your aim of calling us 'armchair critics'. Are you seriously suggesting that we move to China and fight in the streets?
Again - you refer to 'our sovereignty'; I presume you are referring to Canadian sovereignty. Are you suggesting China is moving in? Or is it the Communist Party of China that is moving in? How?
In my view, China has made a transition from a peasant agriculture to an industrial mode, in one generation. If you think that such a mode could be done with ease and without deaths, distress etc - then, I consider you naive. The transitions in Europe, for instance, took hundreds of years and still - it lost millions of lives.
China is moving into democracy as it moves into capitalism - and your rejection of this move and your focus on the past, won't hasten the move.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-06 10:05:20 AM
OK, Xiong, I’m sitting in my armchair loathing commies. What is the ignorance that I am displaying? Should we take our overstretched 2200 soldiers out of Afghanistan and row them in to get Shanghaied?
Xiong, I don’t like this China situation either, and all the more power to you for raising the awareness of atrocities, but I don’t think it’s ignorant not to invade without the help of the US. Right now Bush has his hands full. And right now I think you are helping the Democrats who are helping Unions. With a Democrat in the White House I can guarantee you that the atrocities will get worse in China. So you should think about this chess game that you are playing.
Commies are disgusting, I know that. But I want to have lunch anyway, does that make me naive?
I agree the SARS cover-up was malicious. I say that regularly to my Liberal friends who think the USA is a much bigger problem than China. Yet the Liberals in Ottawa said nothing of consequence to Hu about SARS. But our own Shirley Douglas, resident commie, had plenty to say. She tried to shut down our private radiation clinics that were working overtime while the Hospitals were dealing with SARS. Which commie should I detest the most, Douglas or HU?
What exactly do you want us to do to cause the demise of the commie thugs in China that would be a better plan then engaging them in Trade, the Olympics and otherwise helping China to grow their middle class who will eventually take down their own commies probably faster than Canadians will be able to force our own commies like Shirley Douglas out of business?
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-06 10:22:54 AM
The direct of the effect of the hunger strick is hundrads or even thousands Chinese people got arrested, even disappeared, including some collage students.. sometimes I really wonder why the CCP was so afraid that some Chinese people just fast 24 hours at their own home... are they so weak? now I got the answer.
In China, over 99.99999% of Chinese people have a inborn fear of the CCP government, including my parents, myu relatives. Even after they immegrated to overseas, most people still cannot totaly give up the fear, because they fear they maybe met trouble when they go back China some day, or their relatives are still in China. While Gao is a exception, he fears nothing of the CCP. he is not afraid to die. right now he is guiding many people to be fearless. That's why CCP was afraid.
I have gone through some pro-demo BBS in China, whenever Lawyer Gao is mentioned (most of the time those words was deleted immediately by the BBS supervisor), over 90% of the people think he is a hero, a hero of Chinese conscience.
Posted by: YWZQ | 2006-03-09 2:33:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.