China has backing of more than 100 countries, organizations

C

Canceled.LTroll.27

Banned
More than 100 countries and international organizations have expressed support for China's stance on this year's Nobel Peace Prize, which will be awarded to convicted criminal Liu Xiaobo.

This shows that the majority of international community members do not accept the Nobel Committee's wrong decision.

The Nobel Committee's decision to grant the Peace Prize to a convicted criminal was tantamount to overt support for criminal activities in China, and a gross interference in China's judicial sovereignty.

This wrong decision will incur firm opposition from the Chinese people, and it is unacceptable to the vast majority of countries that uphold justice.

Different countries have different legal provisions, but many Western countries also criminalize the incitement of hatred. China's law is appropriate to its own social and cultural circumstances, which should be respected and understood by other countries.

In China, human rights experts and legal experts aired their opposition to the award.

Liu was sentenced to 11 years in jail on Dec. 25, 2009, after a Beijing court convicted him of violating Chinese law and engaging in activities aimed at overthrowing the government.

Liu's crime was very similiar to the actions of Julian Assange, and China notes that Assange is being punished also. China does not attempt to interfere, and does not criticize the judicial processes of other sovereign nations.

Liu incited others to subvert state power and overthrow the socialist system through writing incendiary articles and releasing them on the Internet and organizing and inducing others to sign in support of his articles.

His actions violated Article 105 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and he had committed the crime of inciting others to subvert state power, said the spokesperson.

The court's decision on Liu's case was based on an adequate factual and legal foundation.

China respects the rule of law, and Chinese courts handled Liu Xiaobo's case according to the law, which was a judicial act of a sovereign country that should be respected.

Responsible international organizations and institutions should weigh their actions against the interests of a peaceful world order.
 
That data is readily available using search functions of the internet.

Does your government restrict access to information, so that you cannot see these facts?

The Nobel commitee has chosen to award the Peace Prize to a criminal serving an 11-year prison sentence for inciting subversion of state power.

19 nations have wisely declined invitations to the ceremony.

China notes that the United Kingdom is even now helping the U.S. capture and punish Julian Assange, a wanted criminal who has sought to harm American interests by illegal actions.

Why is this acceptable to you, but our just punishment of Liu Xiaobo is not?
 
yellow_peril said:
That data is readily available using search functions of the internet.

Does your government restrict access to information, so that you cannot see these facts?

The Nobel commitee has chosen to award the Peace Prize to a criminal serving an 11-year prison sentence for inciting subversion of state power.

19 nations have wisely declined invitations to the ceremony.

China notes that the United Kingdom is even now helping the U.S. capture and punish Julian Assange, a wanted criminal who has sought to harm American interests by illegal actions.

Why is this acceptable to you, but our just punishment of Liu Xiaobo is not?
Click to expand...

Then you'll have no trouble enlightening this sheltered cove with a list then.

Thanks in advance.
 
As you doubtless know, China and 18 other countries have declined to attend this year's Nobel Peace Prize ceremony honoring a convict.

The issue of Liu Xiaobo is not a matter of free speech and human rights. It is a matter of respecting other countries' judicial rights.

You seem to hold double standards with regard to the rule of law, since many other countries including the United States and Britain also have similar laws against subversion, as evidenced by your campaign to punish Julian Assange.

It is difficult to maintain China-Norway relations as well as they were in the past, because the Nobel Committee conferred the Nobel Peace Prize on a convicted Chinese criminal, and the Norwegian government publicly expressed its support for such a decision.
 
Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ukraine, Colombia, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Serbia and Morocco.
 
yellow_peril said:
Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ukraine, Colombia, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Serbia and Morocco.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice that doesn't equate to "over 100 countries and organizations"

Do you happen to have a more comprehensive list?
 
charver said:
I can't help but notice that doesn't equate to "over 100 countries and organizations"

Do you happen to have a more comprehensive list?
Click to expand...

Alfred Nobel had noble intentions for the Peace Prize, but the Nobel Committee didn't live up to them when it decided to confer the prize on Liu Xiaobo, a convict from China.

Despite the political nature of the Peace Prize, the Nobel Committee went too far this time by championing a defunct ideology and trying to transform other nations.

What did the Committee intend to do?

By enshrining a convict, the Committee pulled the old trick of trying to impose the Western values and political system on the rest of the world.

By "enshrining" Liu Xiaobo, it intended to shame China.

By "enshrining" Liu Xiaobo, it intended to boost the morale of those who attempt to separate China, bring trouble to China or even subvert the current Chinese political system.

By "enshrining" Liu Xiaobo, it intended to interfere in the domestic affairs of those countries that do not follow the Western model.

By "enshrining" Liu Xiaobo, it intended to carry out the strategy of exporting the Western political system to China, and in the long run, to change China's path of development.

The Committee is not alone, as it represents some groups and people in the West who can't get rid of the Cold War mentality.

To pursue the above-mentioned objectives, the Committee turned a blind eye to Liu's deeds as well as to the principles of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Everyone knows that Liu Xiaobo, who is supposed to be "honored" in a ceremony in Oslo, is an imprisoned criminal and what he has done has nothing to do with "peace."

Why did the Committee select Liu as this year's winner?

The answer is clear: Liu has done everything he could to subvert the Chinese government, and that suits the strategy of some organizations and people in the West toward China.

That's why some people in the West immediately embraced the Nobel Committee's decision, launching a new round of China-bashing.

Nowadays, some people in the West still believe that the Western values and system are the best, and the rest of the world should follow their suit.

They also believe that they have the mission to peddle the Western political system and values to the entire world.

To this end, they usually adopt two approaches, either force and wars, or supporting those who purportedly represent these values and ideology.

In the case of China, they dare not to resort to force as they did in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, so they turn to the second approach.

This is not, by any means, a new approach.

The West has pursued this approach in its strategy against the former Soviet Union during the Cold War era.

In typical examples, someone from the former Soviet Union were awarded the Peace Prize.

After the fall of the former Soviet Union, however, the Nobel Committee has shifted its focus onto other parts of the world, and this year it has targeted China.

China believes in a peaceful world order, but China never allows others to interfere in its domestic affairs.

"We never interfere in other's internal affairs, and will not allow others to interfere in ours; China's affairs should be left to Chinese people themselves," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said recently.

At a regular news briefing in Beijing last week, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said the Nobel Committee's decision is tantamount to overt support for criminal activities in China, which is "flagrant defiance" and "gross interference" in China's judicial system.

"The issue of Liu Xiaobo is not a matter of free speech and human rights. It is a matter of respecting other countries' judicial rights and how to view China's development path and social system," she said.

Over the past decades, China has pursued the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and China has so far become the world's second biggest economy.

Whether the Chinese model is a success or not, China's development is the best answer, and the 1.3 billion Chinese people have the biggest say. China does not need any outsiders to lecture it.

By establishing the Peace Prize, Mr. Nobel intended to encourage the building of bridges, respect, cooperation and understanding among nations.

China has long pursued a policy of peace and development, striving to build a harmonious world order. So China's policy accords with Mr. Nobel's wish, while the Nobel Committee distorts it.
 
It is a misunderstanding when some foreign media alleged Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to jail for simply "making remarks," as Liu has gone beyond the scope of free speech and was convicted of the crime of inciting subversion of state power, a noted Chinese criminal law expert has said.

"We shall know what Liu has done before discussing whether his deeds constitute a crime or not," said Prof. Gao Mingxuan in a recent report of Legal Daily, a Beijing-based national newspaper.

Liu published a series of articles including "Change the regime by changing the society" on the Internet between October 2005 and August 2007, inciting time after time the subversion of state power, according to documents from the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court and the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court.

Liu, along with some other people, wrote articles proposing " elimination of the privilege of one party to monopolize power" and "setting up a federal republic in China" between September and December, 2008. He organized and induced others to sign in support of his articles and sent them to overseas websites for publication.

Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison at the end of last year by the intermediate court, with his political rights deprived for two years. His appeal at the higher court was rejected in February this year.

At the court, Liu admitted to writing and publishing the articles, but defended himself saying he was making some comments on the nature of criticism and was not instigating subversion of state power.

However, Prof. Gao said Liu's motive to subvert state power and overthrow the social system was straightforward and clear according to the literal meaning of his articles.

Liu said "the dictatorship of the Communist Party of Chin (CPC) brings calamity to the country and people," and wanted to "change the regime" and "set up a federal republic in China," which was obviously inciting people to subvert the legitimate state power of people's democratic dictatorship that is under the CPC's leadership and overthrow the socialist system.

Liu also said "as for the coming of a free China, we would rather pin our hope on the growth on 'new powers' among the people than on the 'new policy' by the rulers."

It showed he was aiming to instigate so-called "new powers" to overthrow the current regime.

The mentioned remarks by Liu went beyond the scope of free speech and were harmful to the society, Prof. Gao said.

How to distinguish between agitation activities aimed at subverting state power and citizens' freedom of speech? Prof. Gao said there were two basic conditions constituting the crime of "inciting subversion of state power" according to China's Criminal Law and past judicial practices.

The first condition is that the act is carried out through rumor, slander or other forms of the kind. Liu's act was "an extreme form of slander," Gao said.

Liu said in a published article that New China, founded in 1949, was "just a nominal people's republic" and was "under the dictatorship the CPC."

Liu's article also said that among all big countries of today, only China was still "in a political ecology of bureaucratic authoritarianism, which resulted in a series of human rights disasters and social crises."

"What he said is apparently a slander," Gao said.

Gao said the second condition is that the act produced serious social harm.

Past judicial practices show that not all acts of instigating subversion of state power by means of slander are subject to criminal penalty, and "the criterion is whether an act brings about social damage nor not."

The criterion is a dividing line between incitation of subversion of state power and freedom of speech.

Gao said Liu's intention to overthrow the government was "obvious."

He said Liu, during quite a long time and in a systematic way, used the Internet to publish a series of articles to vilify China's state power.

Also, Liu's act produced serious consequences, Gao said, as Liu organized and induced others to sign their names on his articles in order to widely spread his provocative speeches, which was then used by overseas anti-China forces to launch attacks against China.

Gao said Liu had "long been engaged in subversive activities." He was convicted of the crime of "counter revolutionary propaganda and incitement" in January 1991, but was given leniency by the court and exempted from criminal penalty after he burst into tears and pleaded guilty.

In September 1996, Liu was sentenced to "reeducation though labor" for three years for disruption of social order.

"All these show that Liu's acts produce serious social harm and he might possibly commit crimes again, so he must be penalized," Gao said.

Moreover, Liu published his provocative articles on the Internet and collected signatures, which was "not merely an issue of speech but an act banned by the Criminal Law," Gao said.

He said some western media made a comment without a complete understanding of Liu's case when they claimed Liu was punished simply for his speeches.

Gao said crimes in the form of utterance could be seen in laws of almost all the countries around the world as well as relevant international conventions, and that "freedom of speech" should be subject to some limits was prevailing among all countries.

For example, section 2383 and 2385 of the 115 chapter of the United States Code stipulates that "whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof," and "whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government" shall be punished.

The Britain's Treason Act 1351 has illegalized practice and seditious statements of conspiracies to disenthrone the Queen.

Section 90b of the Criminal Code of Germany has provisions on crimes of anti-constitutional disparagement of constitutional organs.

Criminal law in Italy has provisions on crimes of insulting political, administrative or judicial agencies.

In Canada, "every one who speaks seditious words, publishes a seditious libel, or is a party to a seditious conspiracy, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment" according to section 61 of the Criminal Code.

Laws in Australia criminalizes advocacy and sedition to overthrow the constitution or the government.

Section 505 of Singapore's Penal Code stipulates that statements conducing public mischief such as offences "against the State or against the public tranquility" are crimes.

Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."

Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression shall be subject to liability established by law to ensure "the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals."

In the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, Article 5 says "each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish public provocation to commit a terrorist offence,...when committed unlawfully and intentionally, as a criminal offence under its domestic law."

There are a lot of such cases in the west where citizens were sued for incitement, according to Prof. Gao.

In the 20th century, the United States has dealt with several such cases, including Schenk mailing anti-enlistment leaflets and inciting servicemen's insubordination; Abrams printing and posting fliers against the United States' decision to send troops, calling on ammunition factory workers to go on strike; and Leon Mack inciting opposition against police.

In the United States, people could be suspected of crime for their speech that might threaten other citizens or state leaders. According to British newspaper Independent, a 28-year-old American man posted a poem Sniper on the website, narrating the scene of shooting a "tyrant," with innuendo of the assassination against the American president. Though President Obama did not appear anywhere in the poem, the writer was still sued for committing a crime, which is subject to a maximum five-year imprisonment and a fine of 165,000 U.S. dollars.

Therefore, the American version of freedom of speech is also based on safeguarding its current social system and stability.

Witness the pursuit of Julian Assange.

Similar cases took place in other countries. For example, in 2005, the Canadian federal court determined that Zundel, a German, advocated subversion of the government and decomposition of diversified society, which had already posed a threat to national security, hence dispelling Zundel from the country.

In 2001, a German band called Landser was convicted of crime for circulating music online with racist indication.

In 2007, a German court convicted Zundel of crime for incitement of racial hatred and Nazi holocaust denial.

In 2003, France announced a website operator guilty for editing webpages that incite racial hatred.

In 2007, Frenchman Gollnisch was convicted of crime for publicly questioning the toll and causes of deaths in Nazi holocaust.

In 2004, a man in Denmark who posted words online to spread hatred to Jewish people was convicted.

In 2006, British historian, David Irving was convicted of crime by a Austrian court for dismissing Nazi holocaust.

Similar cases also occurred at international justice institutions.

For instance, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda announced Belgian journalist Georges Ruggiu guilty for stoking racial hatred and violence through broadcasting.

In addition, differed ruling practices had been adopted by various judicial organs in handling cases concerning speech induced crimes due to differences in cultural backgrounds, social development levels and legal systems. Common law jurisdictions usually apply the "clear and present danger test" as established by late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck verses United States (1919).

Justice Holmes wrote in the decision that "the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injection against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

What's interesting is that Justice Holmes's man-shouting-false-fire-alarm-in-theatre scenario would only amount to a public security case (to be handled by police rather than a court in China) to most Chinese, given that no injury or disturbance to social order was caused. It was, however, a criminal offence in the United States.

Standards for restrictions to the freedom of speech set forth by the United States courts could be taken as references for China, Gao said.

Firstly, freedom of speech should be subject to certain restrictions according to the danger of effect caused by the speech.

Secondly, standards for the restrictions to free speech should be determined in accordance with the nature and extent of danger to public order which might be incurred by the words under specific circumstances.

On these grounds, a state must restrain speeches which are seditious and provocative of social unrest, Gao said.

Therefore, there was no reason to doubt the Beijing courts' rule on Liu Xiaobo's case, even if reviewed with the standards of the United Kingdom.
 
This year's Nobel Peace Prize has created tremendous chaos around the world.

Such a decision was sheer bravado, displaying its ignorance and denial toward a big country that has made remarkable economic progress. The Nobel prize committee may lose the respect of the Chinese people once and for all.

Besides China, the countries who will not attend the ceremony honoring a convict are Afghanistan, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sudan, Tunisia, Ukraine, Venezuela and Vietnam.
 
With my government censoring my internets left, right and, indeed centre, i am relying on you to provide me with this list of over 100.

Please help.
 
yellow_peril said:
Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ukraine, Colombia, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Serbia and Morocco.
Click to expand...

And a fine list of humanitarian, freedom-loving nations that is.
 
WinterBorn said:
And a fine list of humanitarian, freedom-loving nations that is.
Click to expand...

I would guess that the people of those countries love freedom like you do. I would suggest that the difference between the delivering of freedom by those governments and your own is merely a matter of degree.
When the people of America (and UK and Europe) understand that we have been conned into believing we have freedom or that we know what freedom is then we might start to understand each other a little more.
The two most paranoid nations, in my experience are China and the United States.
The only two nations that demand, by statute, a degree of patriotism, are China and the UnitedStates.
The two countries that consistently lie to their people ar China and the United States ... and everyone else of course!
Perhaps it is these similarities that breed fear and hatred.
 
Lowaicue said:
I would guess that the people of those countries love freedom like you do. I would suggest that the difference between the delivering of freedom by those governments and your own is merely a matter of degree.
When the people of America (and UK and Europe) understand that we have been conned into believing we have freedom or that we know what freedom is then we might start to understand each other a little more.
The two most paranoid nations, in my experience are China and the United States.
The only two nations that demand, by statute, a degree of patriotism, are China and the UnitedStates.
The two countries that consistently lie to their people ar China and the United States ... and everyone else of course!
Perhaps it is these similarities that breed fear and hatred.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with most of that.

But I think a big difference is the ability to try and make changes.
 
WinterBorn said:
I can't argue with most of that.

But I think a big difference is the ability to try and make changes.
Click to expand...

I see little evidence on either side of the Pacific. Of course the need for change is greater in the US, which whether we like it or not is in decline, than it is in China which is very definitely in the ascendancy.
Chinese are, almost to a man, pragmatic. If they have more money today than yesterday they are relatively content. They also understand that what we call real freedom in China would be more likely destroy than build. Their government has made mostly good decisions for the last two decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top