China sends woman to 18 months for demanding death for 7 men who prostituted daughter

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Unfortunately i couldn't fit a full description in the title ... she was protesting the fact that the people who raped & forced her 11 year old daughter into prostitution got light sentences. So what does the Chinese government do to help her? It sends her to a gulag.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/16/china-tang-hui-labour-camp


Outcry in China over mother sent to labour camp after daughter's rape

Tang Hui has been released in response to public backlash but the calls for reform continue (http://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?app_id=180444840287&link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/16/china-tang-hui-labour-camp&display=popup&redirect_uri=http://static-serve.appspot.com/static/facebook-share/callback.html&show_error=false)


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/8/16/1345128521388/Prostitute-cards-in-China-008.jpg Advertising cards for young prostitutes who were forced into work by gangsters in China. Photograph: Quirky China News/Rex Features

When a mother was sent to a labour camp for protesting that the men who raped and prostituted her young daughter had been treated too leniently, it sparked fury in China (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/china).
The public outcry led to Tang Hui's release, but did not end with her return home last week.
The case has fuelled calls for the immediate reform of a system that means low-level offenders can be detained in forced-labour camps for up to four years without a trial or legal representation.
The 39-year-old mother was sentenced to 18 months re-education through labour for "seriously disturbing the social order and exerting a negative impact on society" after she repeatedly petitioned officials in Yongzhou, Hunan, because she believed the sentences given to the men who kidnapped, raped and forced her 11-year-old daughter into prostitution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/prostitution) should have been more severe.
Tens of thousands of people commented or forwarded posts about her ordeal. Since her release, attention has shifted to the general shortcomings of the system.
In a poll of almost 20,000 internet users, posted by a well-known author on the Sina Weibo microblog service, 98% called for abolition of the system.
The poll was later deleted, prompting some respondents to joke that it too had been sent to a labour camp.
Ten well-known lawyers have now issued an open letter calling for change to "re-education through labour", which dates to the 1950s.
China had 350 labour camps with 160,000 prisoners at the end of 2008, the last year for which figures are available. The inmates endure long working hours, often in heavy agricultural or factory roles, and receive political education.
The justice ministry does not publish details on why people were detained, although in 2005 it suggested drug offences accounted for more than half the cases. The system is often used to deal with minor criminals, such as thieves and sex workers.
The lawyers who wrote the letter say detaining critics has become an easy way to preserve stability. They want to see it abolished but say that in the short term it must at least be reformed to prevent the most egregious abuses.
"Now this system is being used more frequently in a more casual way," said Li Fangping, one of the authors, adding that petitioners, activists, dissidents and whistleblowers had been victims of it.
Pang Kun, a signatory from a Guangdong law firm, said that suspects got as little as three days to prepare for their hearing, were often in detention for that period, and had no right to legal representation.
He said they should be given more notice, should remain free before their case is heard and should be able to hire lawyers.
The lawyers also say committees should release written statements explaining their decisions, and that those detained should have the right to appeal.
"I am pessimistic about whether the laojiao system can be abolished now as all different levels of governments still regard it as the useful tool to maintain the social stability," Pang added.
Joshua Rosenzweig, a Hong Kong-based independent human rights (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/human-rights) scholar, said: "You can deal with people who you consider to be problematic or threats to that social order without really having to justify it to anyone but yourselves.
"Decisions are essentially made by police … Even though they have a fancy name for [the hearing committees], when it's time to send someone to re-education through labour they just put the sign on the door."
The ministries of justice and public security have yet to respond to the letter.
There have been repeated calls for reform in recent years, often via the National People's Congress, the largely rubber-stamp legislature.
Ying Yong, president of the Shanghai High People's Court, called for changes at the NPC session this spring.
He pointed out that although the system was supposed to deal with cases not serious enough to constitute a crime, the penalties could be much stiffer than the six-month minimum term for criminal offences.
Suspects can be sentenced to between one and three years in confinement. And the sentence can be extended by a year if authorities decide the detainee has not been sufficiently re-educated.





This story speaks for itself.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

'Socialism'. :rolleyes:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Glorious Worker's State

[DasFapital]

those free markets are working pretty well I see.

[Philosopher Jay]

This is anti-communist propaganda pure and simple. Instead of giving real facts about a case, absurd and false facts are stated to make Communists look sick and tyrannical.
The C.I.A. use to make up two or three ridiculous stories like this every day and spread them around the world to make the Soviet Union look ridiculous and tyrannical.

This is just Big Brother denouncing the atrocities of Eurasia. Learn to distinguish vicious myths from facts.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

This is anti-communist propaganda pure and simple. Instead of giving real facts about a case, absurd and false facts are stated to make Communists look sick and tyrannical.
The C.I.A. use to make up two or three ridiculous stories like this every day and spread them around the world to make the Soviet Union look ridiculous and tyrannical.

This is just Big Brother denouncing the atrocities of Eurasia. Learn to distinguish vicious myths from facts.

Well that's a relief, thanks for posting this comrade. Oh by the way could you describe for us how you came to your conclusion in this particular instance? Thanks in advance.

[citizen of industry]

They didn''t get lenient sentences. Two of them got the death penalty, two got life imprisonment and one got a lighter sentence. She was protesting because she wanted them all to get the death penalty.

[khad]

This story speaks for itself.

The story doesn't speak for shit. In that whole article it wasn't even mentioned where this case occurred or what the sentences involved were.

Let's be real here. Two received death, 5 others received lengthy sentences.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/china-s-microbloggers-take-on-re-education-camps.html


The controversial detention case that set off this most recent re-education conversation -- the first in the microblog era -- dates back to October 2006 in Yongzhou, a mid-sized city in Hunan province. There, seven men abducted and raped an 11-year-old girl and forced her into prostitution. She was rescued that December, thanks to a campaign initiated by her mother, Tang Hui. On June 5, after a protracted prosecution, two men received death sentences and five others received lengthy prison sentences.

Tang Hui had demanded death for all seven culprits, and when she learned that her call for justice wouldn't be fulfilled, she undertook a series of protests -- including sleeping in a Yongzhou courtroom for 15 nights. Tang's demonstration so irritated the Yongzhou government that on Aug. 2 she was sentenced to 18 months of re-education through labor.Now, the question is do you support death penalties for all 7 men? I say, sure, why not.

Do you?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think them all getting the death penalty or not is as relevant as a woman being sentenced to a labor camp for being annoying.

[khad]

I don't think them all getting the death penalty or not is as relevant as a woman being sentenced to a labor camp for being annoying.
You should say that only if you would, if in a position of authority, grant this woman the justice she deserves.

Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite. In fact she'll probably hate you even more than these officials who gave her a minor sentence, which, btw, was commuted down to nothing.

It's amazing how people so out of touch with the values and aspirations of the working class claim to speak for it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You should say that only if you would, if in a position of authority, grant this woman the justice she deserves.

Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite. In fact she'll probably hate you even more than these officials who gave her a minor sentence.

It's amazing how people so out of touch with the values and aspirations of the working class claim to speak for it.

Haha what? She should be able to complain about whatever she wants in the most irritating way she sees fit, why should the threat of a labor camp enter into this equation? I'm not speaking for anyone, you sound like a Maoist propaganda poster.

[khad]

Haha what? She should be able to complain about whatever she wants in the most irritating way she sees fit, why should the threat of a labor camp enter into this equation? I'm not speaking for anyone, you sound like a Maoist propaganda poster.
I think it should be painfully obvious to anyone the absurdity of you calling me a Maoist.

But this thread is instructive on how deluded some of you are. Bottom line, if you don't support the death penalty, you have no right to comment on this case

[Leftsolidarity]

I love how people on the left are so eager to gobble up any bullshit capitalist media puts out. There are just criticisms of the situation in China, this is not.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think it should be painfully obvious to anyone the absurdity of you calling me a Maoist.

But this thread is instructive on how deluded some of you are. Bottom line, if you don't support the death penalty, you have no right to comment on this case

I didn't call you a Maoist I said you sounded like a Maoist propaganda poster, as in something full of shit pasted onto a wall. Also check me out commentin' on this case while not supporting the death penalty. This must be difficult for you to deal with.

[khad]

I didn't call you a Maoist I said you sounded like a Maoist propaganda poster, as in something full of shit pasted onto wall. Also check me out commentin' on this case while not supporting the death penalty. This must be difficult for you to deal with.
Yes, you display all the signs of terminal class chauvinism.

In China, the working class demands justice, and it's painfully apparent how oblivious most of the so-called socialists on this site are to that.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yes, you display all the signs of terminal class chauvinism.

In China, the working class demands justice, and it's painfully apparent how oblivious most of the so-called socialists on this site are to that.

Uhh.. ok. Justice, got it. So, is sending her to the labor camp part of the Working Class™ approved Justice or not? I'm not following.

[DasFapital]

I can't believe you dumb shits! This woman doesn't deserve to go to a labor camp. Oppose all injustice whether it wraps itself in capitalism or "socialism".

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Wait - Khad - are you saying that anyone who opposes the death penalty should support sending people who want the death penalty used to labor camps??? I think one can disagree with the sentences she is demanding without thinking that 18 months in a labor camp is what this woman needs. It certainly seems like the implication of what you're arguing.

[A Marxist Historian]

Unfortunately i couldn't fit a full description in the title ... she was protesting the fact that the people who raped & forced her 11 year old daughter into prostitution got light sentences. So what does the Chinese government do to help her? It sends her to a gulag.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/16/china-tang-hui-labour-camp

This story speaks for itself.

Yeah, Stalinism in action.

Still, you have the contrast with America, where you see similar things or even worse, like that black woman sent to prison in Connecticut for trying to get her kid into an integrated kindergarten now that racial integration in the public schools has been basically banned most places.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/980/connecticut.html

And in America unlike China, you don't get popular outrage and you don't get the authorities backing down.

-M.H.-

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand the woman did not get sent to a labor camp, the sentence was commuted. The justice system in China leaves much to be desired. It is unjust sentencing someone to three years in a labor camp for sleeping in a court room for 15 days, just as it was unjust sentencing the members of Pussy Riot to 2 years in prison for doing a form of performance art in a church (built over a much more useful public swimming pool). Still, the events in the article were taken way out of context. The purpose of the article is to mobilize public opinion in Britain and the US against China during Obama's "pivot to Asia" strategy.

I have no sympathy for the massively corrupt ruling class in the PRC just as I have no sympathy for the US ruling class. Since I live in the US the ruling class of my own country is the enemy.

There are a vast and growing number of "mass incidents" in China and, under mass pressure from below, and with the fear of having their necks in a noose, the Chinese ruling class is more responsive to pressure from below. If we only had this in the US!

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It says right at the beginning of the article that she was released due to public outcry, nothing was taken out of context.

[RadioRaheem84]

The woman getting the harsh sentence for sleeping a courtroom is unfortunate. But Khad has a point, the woman demanded death for all seven men yet all the men received a hard sentence.

She wanted them all dead. The court said no, she crashed the courthouse and got sentenced to 18 months.

It's not like there are any good guys here really. The lady advocated a sentence that she didn't get and began her own protest. I don't agree with the sentencing at all but what was the State supposed to do? Honor her wish? Keep letting her storm into the courthouse?

The story is clearly sensationalism on the part of the cappie press to associate communism with China.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The woman getting the harsh sentence for sleeping a courtroom is unfortunate. But Khad has a point, the woman demanded death for all seven men yet all the men received a hard sentence.


Why is it so surprising she demanded such a harsh sentence? Her daughter was raped and forced into prostitution. Such a harsh emotional response should be approached from a psychological perspective and NOT a legal one. Instead of trying to forcefully reeducate her by sending her to do menial agricultural tasks, it would be much more helpful to show sympathy with why she feels that rage without necessarily assuming her position is right. The child she loved had this horrible, traumatic experience, and while I may disagree with her response I can certainly see why moralistic judgement of her position is inappropriate. In fact, the fact that she is a mother of a raped daughter makes this worse-a child who was the victim of such a horrible attack should not have one of her caretakers getting sent to a jail when she needs that familial support even more.


She wanted them all dead. The court said no, she crashed the courthouse and got sentenced to 18 months.

It's not like there are any good guys here really. The lady advocated a sentence that she didn't get and began her own protest. I don't agree with the sentencing at all but what was the State supposed to do? Honor her wish? Keep letting her storm into the courthouse?
Many people whose children suffer such inhumane treatment - rape and forced prostitution - will have an emotional desire for severe retributive justice. Her petitioning the government for harsher punishment is in no way a reasonable pretext for the state to throw her into a labor camp. It's a false choice to say it is between (1) honoring her wish or (2) throwing her in a forced labor camp.

Her sleeping in a courtroom and petitioning the government is not a justification for a long stint in a forced labor camp. The hypocrisy of Leftists thinking its ok to send someone to a labor camp for petitioning the government or occupying a courtroom, even if her cause is unjust, is so stark it's a little galling. I didn't agree with why every Occupy protester was protesting, that doesn't mean I would support the US state sending them to prison for 18 months. Likewise, it is crazy to support the Chinese state sending protesters to labor camps for a long stint in this case.


The story is clearly sensationalism on the part of the cappie press to associate communism with China. No, the story describes silly and inexcusable authoritarianism by a nakedly state-capitalist dictatorship which does not like any form of popular discontent at any of its decisions, no matter how minor the context.

[RadioRaheem84]

You're still not following the correct line of logic.

A.) The men recieved their punishment. I am assuming all involved had different levels of involvement, which is why they recieved different sentences.

B.) The mother wanted them all put to death and the court disagreed. Of course the issue is trauma on her part but she slept in the courthouse for 15 days.

C.) I highlighted the part that said I didn't agree with the sentence and you still went for the straw man argument.

D.) what should the state do? I don't think giving her a labor camp sentence was good at all but what shouldve been done? Psych treatment yes, I agree. Your thoughts?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You're still not following the correct line of logic.

A.) The men recieved their punishment. I am assuming all involved had different levels of involvement, which is why they recieved different sentences.

B.) The mother wanted them all put to death and the court disagreed. Of course the issue is trauma on her part but she slept in the courthouse for 15 days.

C.) I highlighted the part that said I didn't agree with the sentence and you still went for the straw man argument.

D.) what should the state do? I don't think giving her a labor camp sentence was good at all but what shouldve been done? Psych treatment yes, I agree. Your thoughts?

B-yes she occupied the court for 15 days, I have participated in occupations before too. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the motives for her occupation, I don't think the institution of the state should have such powers to punish people for long and grueling sentences for the occupation of public buildings. If they really don't like her they can just kick her out, post guards at the door and get on with business as usual. Leave the big sticks for violent offenses and large scale corruption or money laundering, why bring it out over an annoying woman who protests a lot? Doing so is a sign of autocracy, not a "people's government".

C-the implication of the false dichotomy you raised is that the decision of the Chinese state was, even if mistaken, excusable based on seeming limitations in the context (especially when followed up with the claim that this is nothing but anticommunist propaganda).

D-psych treatment would have been better, but I think safer avenues for her to make her case and more time for her to deal with the trauma could have helped too. Even leaving her be would be better-none of the things mentioned which she did are really so dangerous to society. This lady can shout all she likes about the need to execute someone, it doesn't mean it's ever going to happen or harm anyone in any serious way

[RadioRaheem84]

So you're suggestion is to let a traumatic woman protest and occupy the courthouse to get a conviction overturned on five of the men not given a death sentence? Wasn't her sentence commuted to less than that. And again you're looking for the controversy because nothing I said entails that I agree with the states decision.

The western press is just making this out to be more than it really is. Something like this could easily happen in the States. Easily.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So you're suggestion is to let a traumatic woman protest and occupy the courthouse to get a conviction overturned on five of the men not given a death sentence?

That's a strawman too you know!

They can put guards at the courthouse to stop her from occupying for all I care, my focus is on the excessive and pointless nature of the punishment. There are numerous possible responses which could have been better, but it would require more knowledge of the case to know which exactly is best. Most of them I'm sure would have been better than a harsh sentence in a labor camp.


Wasn't her sentence commuted to less than that. Yes because people complained. Such a decision should not have taken place to begin with. The Chinese state also took measures to limit public debate on the system afterwards.


The western press is just making this out to be more than it really is. Something like this could easily happen in the States. Easily.It's crazy to give the PRC a slide on this, as if their red flag meant for anything, or as if this is some kind of anti-Chinese conspiracy. This was a stupid and excessively harsh sentence, and it didn't come from China being "Communist" (which it isn't), it came from a political order which uses its judicial system and police power arbitrarily to punish people it sees as threatening stability. We shouldn't quiet our criticism of a country just because it had a brief stint as an anti-Imperialist power during the cold war. Such things happen in the US all the time and when it does many people protest that too, and rightly so. Criticizing our own system however does not mean giving the PRC a pass or having any illusions as to the motivations of its leadership.

[Aristophenes McTwitch]

Eh, and in America we have men sent to prison for stealing donuts. I can't post links but you can google that if you wish.

[Ocean Seal]

I love how people on the left are so eager to gobble up any bullshit capitalist media puts out. There are just criticisms of the situation in China, this is not.
:confused:
A mother getting a sentence for wanting the men who raped her daughter to die isn't a legitimate criticism?

[Leftsolidarity]

:confused:
A mother getting a sentence for wanting the men who raped her daughter to die isn't a legitimate criticism?

Not really

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Not really

The state arbitrarily imprisoning people with views differing from the politically recognized norm is totally ok with you? Or is it just because this is another state which drapes itself in a red flag?


Eh, and in America we have men sent to prison for stealing donuts. I can't post links but you can google that if you wish.

Its funny how people instantly assume that criticizing China necessarily means letting the USA off the hook for it's stupid laws. Hey, both are massive states which protect huge economic interests and misuse the police to protect those interests ... all of these institutions should be questioned critically.

[Leftsolidarity]

The state arbitrarily imprisoning people with views differing from the politically recognized norm is totally ok with you? Or is it just because this is another state which drapes itself in a red flag?



She wasn't sentenced because of her views; she was sentenced because of her actions.

Could they have handled it better? Sure.

Does that mean I'm going to step in line with this anti-Chinese bourgeois propaganda? No.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Damn right! I'll take the pro-Chinese bourgeois propaganda I'm used to thanks. Brand loyalty people.

[Leftsolidarity]

Damn right! I'll take the pro-Chinese bourgeois propaganda I'm used to thanks. Brand loyalty people.

Which is? I don't know where you get your news but the only thing fed to us is anti-Chinese/socialist propaganda.

So please, continue to talk about this "pro-Chinese bourgeois propaganda" that supposedly exists.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Which is? I don't know where you get your news but the only thing fed to us is anti-Chinese/socialist propaganda.

So please, continue to talk about this "pro-Chinese bourgeois propaganda" that supposedly exists.

Eh sounds like you're getting your news from the wrong marketing firm. Try this one http://www.workers.org/ or this one http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/?pslsite=1 or any one of the other dozens of cosplay nerds.

[Leftsolidarity]

Eh sounds like you're getting your news from the wrong marketing firm. Try this one http://www.workers.org/ or this one http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/?pslsite=1 or any one of the other dozens of cosplay nerds.

ZING! Ya got me there, buddy. The paper of the party I belong to and the party that has a similar line to us reflects the views of it's members? Shocking!

But, unfortunately, we both know that neither one of those reaches a massive audience and is not the media establishment, nor really affects the general population's views.

So please, show me these "pro-Chinese bourgeois propaganda".

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Brands take time to build :confused:, you're like talking to a wall.

[Leftsolidarity]

you're like talking to a wall.

The feeling is mutual.

Hw about next time you try to reply to me you make real comments instead of your normal sectarian trolling. At least everyone else here who has been disagreeing has had a fairly decent conversation. You just came in with a one liner and then a troll comment with what you thought was a funny jab at 2 parties you don't like.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think people are missing the point because they're hell bent on constructing the narrative that we're defending the Chinese State out of some loyalty.

Get this through yer thick skulls. I don't think anyone in here is defending the Chinese State what so ever. The point is that the piece seems a bit sensationalist considering the actual circumstances.

The picture painted is a woman heroically protesting the State to kill her daughters abusers and she gets sentenced to 18 months hard labor because of her protest. The bigger picture painted is that China = Communism, so this is what Communism stands for.

The reality is that the men did receive sentences; harsh ones at that. Death and long jail sentences. This was not enough for the woman who was traumatized by this incident. So she took it upon herself to storm and occupy the courthouse. The State, sentenced her and later commuted that sentence because of popular support for her actions.

That's all that happened. There is nothing out of the ordinary that wouldn't have happened in the UK, the US or Canada even (minus maybe the length and severity of punishment).

What is there to debate here? What is there to create giant bad guys and good guys out of this? China is not getting a pass. The point is that spin by the Western Press.

There is nothing here. Move on.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The feeling is mutual.

Hw about next time you try to reply to me you make real comments instead of your normal sectarian trolling. At least everyone else here who has been disagreeing has had a fairly decent conversation. You just came in with a one liner and then a troll comment with what you thought was a funny jab at 2 parties you don't like.

I don't follow

[Ocean Seal]

She wasn't sentenced because of her views; she was sentenced because of her actions.
Which included expressing her views.


Could they have handled it better? Sure.
Does that mean I'm going to step in line with this anti-Chinese bourgeois propaganda? No.
Yep propaganda. Anti-Chinese bourgeois propaganda. Like the anti-American bourgeois propaganda. Not worth anything.

[Leftsolidarity]

Yep propaganda. Anti-Chinese bourgeois propaganda. Like the anti-American bourgeois propaganda. Not worth anything

Ok, I don't see how you did anything except prove my point.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think people are missing the point because they're hell bent on constructing the narrative that we're defending the Chinese State out of some loyalty.

Get this through yer thick skulls. I don't think anyone in here is defending the Chinese State what so ever. The point is that the piece seems a bit sensationalist considering the actual circumstances.


Focusing on some journalistic double standard, real or illusory, instead of the content of the case, is a form of defending the Chinese state. If you are not defending China, then at least give others the benefit of the doubt and not assume that they then are giving the USA a pass for similar human rights abuses.



The picture painted is a woman heroically protesting the State to kill her daughters abusers and she gets sentenced to 18 months hard labor because of her protest. The bigger picture painted is that China = Communism, so this is what Communism stands for. Except "communism" was not mentioned once in the article, nor was "socialism", nor was an explicit attempt to tie a particular economic ideology to the story. Everything involved has to do with an absurd, corrupt and fairly unaccountable justice system. Anyone who knows anything about the economy of China will not attribute this to "Communism," and presumably anyone on this forum is smart enough to know the difference. Those facts are revealed by the specifics of the case, no matter what protest tactics she was adopting.



The reality is that the men did receive sentences; harsh ones at that. Death and long jail sentences. This was not enough for the woman who was traumatized by this incident. So she took it upon herself to storm and occupy the courthouse. The State, sentenced her and later commuted that sentence because of popular support for her actions.

That's all that happened. There is nothing out of the ordinary that wouldn't have happened in the UK, the US or Canada even (minus maybe the length and severity of punishment). It's when you say this that it seems like you're defending the Chinese state. Who gives a fuck that the USA, UK and Canada do this kind of bullshit all the time? We all know about years of torture, illegal detention and state violence by the USA in Guantanamo and "black sites", we know that the US prison system holds more people than any other country, nobody has any illusions about that - turning this into a US vs China thing is even more of a strawman than what you are accusing others of. The fact is, and I repeat myself here, the absurdities of the American political system in no way means we should remain silent of the Chinese. IF the USA threw a protester in jail for 18 months, there would be a huge thread on it and there would be nobody on this forum who would stick up for the USA (except for the kind of protester which gets restricted within a week), yet somehow starting a thread criticizing the regime of China is inappropriate as if we're playing into some great CIA game to discredit the government of the PRC (and as if the government of the PRC is not something worth discrediting!)

Anyhow, this was written by the Guardian, which is obviously a member of the bourgeois private media but has written many articles too on state abuse in the US, UK, Israel, Russia and other states, so it's not like some horrible editorial double standard has been objectively shown either.



What is there to debate here? What is there to create giant bad guys and good guys out of this? China is not getting a pass. The point is that spin by the Western Press.

There is nothing here. Move on.When you say "we shouldn't talk about this because it happens in the USA and UK all the time, this story isn't worth talking about" or "well the sentence was commuted, so it's all ok" then you are in effect giving China a pass. I don't think you support the Chinese state or anything, but regardless of what "spin" occurs this IS a case worth talking about because it shows how the Chinese state is alienated from the citizens of China, and its justice system is an active participant in the process of growing the sense of alienation.

Even if it is in the "Western press" the reality is that the "western press" has discussed bad things which happen in bourgeois republics draped in red flags as well.

EDIT nor is this a unique thing in China. The excessive power of the state and police is routinely used to repress dissent, even after the horrible Sichuan earthquake. This isn't an invention of the Western press, this is the Chinese elite using the police to protect themselves. If you can stand an evil bourgeois news source like the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/asia/04china.html?pagewanted=all so it's not like this is an isolated incident in terms of abuse of police power. The only thing interesting about this case is that it went along with an actual legal punishment towards the accused. Of course, the Chinese state is not some crazy incarnation of evil ... like any government, they respond to protests which grow large enough, but that does not speak to the alienation which exists between the people at large and the legal authorities, and the way police actions contribute to that alienation.

[RadioRaheem84]

Focusing on some journalistic double standard, real or illusory, instead of the content of the case, is a form of defending the Chinese state. If you are not defending China, then at least give others the benefit of the doubt and not assume that they then are giving the USA a pass for similar human rights abuses.


It is a double standard because a lot was left out about the case. It is you who are getting confused. No where did I insinuate that you or anyone else is giving the USA a pass either.

I was merely saying that something like this can easily happen in the US or UK, when you look at the facts surrounding the case, facts the article left out.



Except "communism" was not mentioned once in the article, nor was "socialism", nor was an explicit attempt to tie a particular economic ideology to the story. Everything involved has to do with an absurd, corrupt and fairly unaccountable justice system. Anyone who knows anything about the economy of China will not attribute this to "Communism," and presumably anyone on this forum is smart enough to know the difference. Those facts are revealed by the specifics of the case, no matter what protest tactics she was adopting.


It's implied. And I was talking about people in general who come across this article. It's meant to make China look authoritarian (which it is) but the association about it not being free because it's Communist.



It's when you say this that it seems like you're defending the Chinese state. Who gives a fuck that the USA, UK and Canada do this kind of bullshit all the time? We all know about years of torture, illegal detention and state violence by the USA in Guantanamo and "black sites", we know that the US prison system holds more people than any other country, nobody has any illusions about that - turning this into a US vs China thing is even more of a strawman than what you are accusing others of.


You get so pissed off and self righteous about bullshit. Stuff you're literally pulling out of your ass. You didn't get anything I said and are constructing a tower of straw.



When you say "we shouldn't talk about this because it happens in the USA and UK all the time, this story isn't worth talking about" or "well the sentence was commuted, so it's all ok" then you are in effect giving China a pass. I don't think you support the Chinese state or anything, but regardless of what "spin" occurs this IS a case worth talking about because it shows how the Chinese state is alienated from the citizens of China, and its justice system is an active participant in the process of growing the sense of alienation.


It's a double standard because the facts of the case. Khad used another source, much more reliable, that presented a bigger picture. The Guardian article clearly meant to address the issue in an anti-Chinese way.

It's no different than when RT News goes on and on about the US when it ignores clear violations of the Russian State. RT sometimes even distorts the news surrounding certain events in the States to make the States look worse or aggrandize the image of the rogue cowboy nation.

Is saying this giving the US a pass? No, it's not.

You're just looking for something to fight against and it's clearly more idealistically driven, comrade.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It is a double standard because a lot was left out about the case. It is you who are getting confused. No where did I insinuate that you or anyone else is giving the USA a pass either.

I was merely saying that something like this can easily happen in the US or UK, when you look at the facts surrounding the case, facts the article left out.


Saying "The USA/UK does this too" looks a lot like you accusing me of a double standard in favor of the US or UK. Obviously I'm more than aware of the plentiful abuses of the US government from Gitmo to black sites to sending protesters to prison on ridiculous charges, so why do you need to remind ME of that? I have nothing to do with whether or not the Guardian has articles which are similar about the US or UK, but frankly I don't see that as relevant to this case. This has nothing to do with the guardian's editorial line and everything to do with Chinese judicial policy.



It's implied. And I was talking about people in general who come across this article. It's meant to make China look authoritarian (which it is) but the association about it not being free because it's Communist.
So, this is a case of China being authoritarian, and China is authoritarian, but talking about China's authoritarian component is somehow anti-communist? Nobody on this forum would attribute the actions of the government here on "communism" even if uneducated readers might infer that, so I don't see how the common association of "not free" and "communism" is relevant. People on this forum should be knowledgeable enough about what socialism is to analyze the particulars of Chinese state policy without buying into an anti-communist message.



You get so pissed off and self righteous about bullshit. Stuff you're literally pulling out of your ass. You didn't get anything I said and are constructing a tower of straw.
You may say I am making a straw man but saying "Well, the USA and UK does this!" when everyone on the forum obviously knows that fact does in fact suggest a defense of the Chinese state or at least an attempt to minimize the negative implications of their act



It's a double standard because the facts of the case. Khad used another source, much more reliable, that presented a bigger picture. The Guardian article clearly meant to address the issue in an anti-Chinese way.
Yes except that bigger picture didn't reveal anything which makes the position of the Chinese state any more excusable.



It's no different than when RT News goes on and on about the US when it ignores clear violations of the Russian State. RT sometimes even distorts the news surrounding certain events in the States to make the States look worse or aggrandize the image of the rogue cowboy nation.
Except The Guardian has posted stories in the past which reflect negatively on the US and UK, as I said, so the example of RT is too extreme. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/obama-drone-wars-normalisation-extrajudicial-killing?INTCMP=SRCH there is an editorial when they criticize Obama's drone war, presumably if they are such hardline anticommunists and pro-NATO propagandists they would not be so quick to post similar headlines about the USA. If you search their website you will find plenty of other headlines making the US, UK, Israel and other countries look imperialistic, authoritarian and greedy. This has more to do with the real motive of the bourgeoisie, which is selling newspapers, than the supposed motive you seem to be giving it, which is undermining the Chinese government ... the press has a financial incentive to reveal stories which make various institutions look bad, and perhaps sensationalize those stories a little, but that does not mean that they are a part of some kind of grand conspiracy to discredit a certain group or government.

[RadioRaheem84]

So, this is a case of China being authoritarian, and China is authoritarian, but talking about China's authoritarian component is somehow anti-communist?

This is where you're pulling stuff out of yer rear. How did I ever hint that your position was anti-communist?

How do you even gather that?



Yes except that bigger picture didn't reveal anything which makes the position of the Chinese state any more excusable.


I said there was nothing here. No good guys vs bad guys story here. Nothing that needed the Chinese state to be excused. The revelation of more fact about the case doesn't mean that the Chinese State is excused but that the Western press was trying to create a narrative.

The Guardian writing about the faults of the UK, US, Israel is spurious. They still wouldn't aggrandize the matter knowing there would be full inquiry if they did. If they whistleblow or critique the powers they usually have their sources in line. They take it more seriously.

Very different playbook when they're writing about China. Big facts like the one left out are more common.

Can you distinguish between just calling out a papers bias and defending the Chinese state or is it just all the same to you?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This is where you're pulling stuff out of yer rear. How did I ever hint that your position was anti-communist?

How do you even gather that?


Um the implication of what you were saying was that the discussion of the original article was playing into an anti-communist narrative. No you didn't say I was an anti-communist, but I didn't say you said I was either.



I said there was nothing here. No good guys vs bad guys story here. Nothing that needed the Chinese state to be excused. The revelation of more fact about the case doesn't mean that the Chinese State is excused but that the Western press was trying to create a narrative.

The Guardian writing about the faults of the UK, US, Israel is spurious. They still wouldn't aggrandize the matter knowing there would be full inquiry if they did. If they whistleblow or critique the powers they usually have their sources in line. They take it more seriously.

Very different playbook when they're writing about China. Big facts like the one left out are more common.

Can you distinguish between just calling out a papers bias and defending the Chinese state or is it just all the same to you?When you first entered the discussion you only raised the issue of press bias in the last sentence. You also said in a later reply that they were blowing it out of proportion because the US and UK would do it too, which does raise the issue of the press but in completely different terms, i.e that this story is somehow not worth reporting on when the opposite is true, that the press should report about such abuses of power in BOTH countries like the US UK and the PRC (before you accuse me of making a straw man, the term "blowing out of proportion" has pretty clear implications in that regard)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2497936&postcount=23

If your only point is on the bias of the press then clarify that a little more. The false dichotomy raised about what the Chinese state could possibly do in this situation certainly added to the "confusion". It certainly seemed like you were making a bigger argument than just a discussion of press bias.

As for the issue of the guardian writing about the US, etc, no it's not spurious. Your main argument was "the same thing happens in the US, UK" etc, which, if your focus is on the press and the press alone, implies that the news source I used would not write an article if something like that happened. The argument that "American and British press do more thorough reporting in the USA", that might well be a legitimate argument, but that hasn't been your main dispute as of yet.



She wasn't sentenced because of her views; she was sentenced because of her actions.

Could they have handled it better? Sure.

Does that mean I'm going to step in line with this anti-Chinese bourgeois propaganda? No.
(1) Calling this "bourgeois propaganda" is silly, reductionist and off topic because this does not reflect the class interest of the bourgeoisie. China is a capitalist country, therefore propaganda which serves the interests of the bourgeoisie as a class would not oppose it.

(2) there is nothing to "step in line" with except for the legitimate criticism of a heavy handed state apparatus which is alienated from its people and uses arbitrary state law to "deal" with annoying people who disrupt the social order.