
China congress: BBC team forced to sign confession - duncan_bayne
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39137293
======
phreack
The current state of human rights in China, and its utter, utter lack of
admonition by world leaders due to their dependence on their economy is to me
one of the greatest tragedies of today.

I truly don't know what could be done to help free speech prosper there as it
should.

~~~
narrator
For decades now we've been hearing that China will change and become more
democratic as its economy grows. It's one of those issues like the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict that you'll read an update on every week in the
NYC or The Economist for 20 years straight.

China got things to work though. It did it without a free press. It did it
without an independent central bank. It did it without elections. It did it
without Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter.

What did China get to work though? Nobody knows. That's because the western
press ignores the inner working of the structure of their society. They only
focus on what they do and how it is largely bad and can be remedied only by
adopting our systems. There isn't any attempt at understanding or self-
criticism.

I just find it annoying when there is ideological and cultural conflict that
continues in an endless stalemate and every week it's groundhog day.

~~~
mikeash
It's been an article of faith for a long time that prosperity requires
democracy, and democracy brings prosperity.

It seemed reasonable during the Cold War, when the First World was democratic
and prosperous, and the Second World was authoritarian and much less
prosperous. But now we're seeing that maybe that was just a coincidence, or
perhaps democracy helps but isn't required.

I do wonder if China's prosperity will be more fragile. If the Chinese
Communist Party turns more ideological, or another Mao-like figure shows up,
it could all come tumbling down.

On the other hand, democracy is starting to look a little more fragile these
days as well.

~~~
oblio
Is there any large, populous, developed country which is non-democratic? I
don't know any.

~~~
mikeash
How large, populous, and developed do they have to be to qualify? It's hard to
answer that without setting some boundaries first. China still has lots of
really poor people and undeveloped areas, but a huge portion of the country is
developed more or less to first world standards, so China would qualify if you
can accept some inconsistency.

Otherwise, Saudi Arabia? 30+ million people, high per-capita GDP, fairly high
Human Development Index, totally non-democratic.

Russia might be a marginal example, with a moderately high HDI and a
government at least pretends to be democratic.

I think Germany is a pretty good example if we're allowed to look at the past
rather than just the present.

~~~
oblio
China is a developing country. If "a huge portion of the country is developed
to first world standards" then 50% of developing countries would suddenly be
classified as developed. One of the criteria for being a developed country is
uniformity of development.

Saudi Arabia basically sells gold that springs out of the ground. Let's see
how they fare when the price of their "gold" goes down to 1/100th.

Russia is not a developed country, it's a developing country.

And about Germany, we're talking about past 1945. Otherwise any comparison is
useless since a relatively poor country in 2017 is richer than quite a few
developed countries pre 1945 - progress does that to things :)

------
giis
On free rights: There was one time - one student was curious about other
things like religious belief etc. The short conversion went like this: He:"Are
you a Buddhist?" Me:"No, I'm Hindu .. but I like Buddhism more." He:"??"
Me:"What , I don't understand your question" He:"Why you do that?" Me:"Do
what?" He:"Like Buddhism? while being Hindu" Me:"Nothing wrong in it, I like
teaching of Buddha" He:"Lucky, you choose what you want. Here we can't openly
tell we follow religion." Me:"Why?" He:"Our govt, won't allow such things."

we know Chinese communist party has strong influence in people way of life,but
hugely disappointed to hear people can't even decide which religion to
follow,if one wants to? I agree, every country has its own issue, but free
speech and free rights are important. For ex, If social media like
Facebook/google etc banned in other countries, there will be huge uproar by
people in the name of free speech. Even the one who never used social media,
will be against govt decision.

Sincerely hope common people from world's most largest population will have
these rights in future.

~~~
trome
Your being a bit presumptuous there, in most Western countries they'd be able
to block VK and other non-local sites without protests in the streets, and if
they occured you'd see a significant portion of the country (esp. in the US)
hoping for the police to come in and crush said protest.

Depending on the subject, the protest can be crushed, hence why most public
spaces in the US have been bricked over for easy protest breakup.

~~~
mmirate
> bricked over for easy protest breakup

What do you mean by this, exactly?

~~~
trome
At UW Seattle, they bricked over Red Sqare (and hence made it red) so that
they could use water cannons on the protesters and they'd have nothing to
firmly attach/affix themselves to, whether that be trees, stakes in the
ground, etc. This was also done to many urban spaces and college campus
squares at the same time, as it is very effective.

Note: love the downvotes, keep 'em coming. I'm just referencing history here
:P

------
philliphaydon
I'm confused. So we are upset with China and it's lack of human rights. But we
get upset with Trump for talking to Taiwan...

If we were advocating human rights we would also advocate against One China
policy.

~~~
laurent123456
Except that Trump only talk to Taiwan as a way to bargain with China, which is
a dumb diplomatic move (since, given how complex the situation is, the status
quo is probably what's best for both Taiwan and China). Probably the last
thing Trump care about is human rights.

~~~
philliphaydon
My point is that if America wants to talk about human rights in china, then it
also has to denounce its acceptance of One China policy.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Probably not wise to mention Trump then, who praised the Chinese regime for
crushing the pro-democracy "riot" (his word) in Tienanmen Square.

~~~
Neliquat
Citation?

~~~
BEEdwards
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/donald-
trump...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/donald-trump-
tiananmen-square-china-playboy-interview)

~~~
dqv
That source chain is really weird to me. It goes Guardian -> Independent ->
filthy.media - a news company founded in 2016. I guess they have a license to
the content? Otherwise, I don't get why Guardian wouldn't just link to the
original Playboy interview.

Okay, on to the Guardian article, which does well to quote the original
content.

>When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost
blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with
strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now
perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world—

Honestly, I don't know _what_ that means - it's bordering unintelligible. The
way he used pronouns in that sentence completely obfuscates who he was calling
vicious and who he was calling strong.

So, I can go with how I feel about Trump as a person and use the Guardian as
my source for how I should interpret what he said: "he praised the Chinese
regime". Or I can just go with what I really feel which is "I have no idea
what that means."

~~~
fjdlwlv
It's tricky but translatable. He's saying that the government was vicious as
horrible, but it worked for them because they where forceful. Then he maps it
back to the US, saying that we need to be forceful to be successful
(presumably we won't be horrible and vicious, though)

Strength is bad when evil people (THEY) use it but good when good people (US)
use it.

He's using the King Arthurian logic of "Might makes Right in this world, but
WE shall use Might in the service of Right" and holy cow my required liberal
arts elective is directly applicable to modern government policy.

~~~
burkaman
Trump does not have a core set of principles, so you cannot presume and read
between the lines, you can only take what he says at face value.

------
throw2016
Human rights have always been used as a cynical tool tool by a clique of
countries to forward their own interests.

Saudis can be ignored for decades inspite of being the worst offenders on any
parameter but Iran, Syria or Libya must be bombed. That itself stops any
credible 'human rights concerns' by the US or Europe and infact shifts it the
other way for warmongering, massive violations and basically destroying these
countries. What can be worse for anyone genuinely concerned about human
rights?

There have been zero consequences for US citizens involved in these violations
from Iraq to Snowden so the idea that we can put the spotlight on anyone is
laughable and smacks of dissonance. We can't be building the infrastructure to
run total surveillance states, attack other countries at will and yet lecture
others on human rights.

This is politics masquerading as concern and its the worst sort of
exploitation that trivialize and make a mockery of 'human rights'. This type
of sanctimonious posturing is completely disconnected from the way the world
works and way past its sell by date. Integrity requires either stop the self
serving geopolitical agendas or stop the posturing.

------
TorKlingberg
Tell me again how mainstream media is outdated and we should listen directly
to the official sources.

~~~
retox
Mainstream media is an uncritical mouthpiece for official sources.

~~~
Paradigma11
As seen by the coverage of the current Trump administration.

Not.

------
js8
Is there some (longer) article with more context in it? I would like to read
more about it.

Anyway, this is why free speech is important.

~~~
peteretep
Free speech is the government not officially taking action against you for
your speech.

This was just run-of-the-mill intimidation by those in power, of a free media.
Really how far away is this from putting journalists in cages and having your
audience shout at them at campaign rallies?

~~~
noobermin
Why is this being downvoted? How is it when X person chills the press is bad
but when Y person I like does it, it's okay?

~~~
peteretep
Because everyone is nitpicking the first statement and not reading the second.

------
brilliantcode
You can see how behind China is in terms of the West. The concept of Human
Rights is non existent in newly emerging markets. It took the US a few
centuries. I'd imagine it would take China similar amount of time before it
becomes "cool" like the US.

This is why I don't see China replacing US hegemony anytime soon in our
lifetime. Civilizations upgrade themselves internally as they realize the
overwhelming benefits of valuing human life.

~~~
virmundi
I believe we're seeing the systematic destruction of human rights in the West.
Many governments from former British colonies desire a centralized economy.
They want to watch their citizenry. As we dismantle the West, it will look
more like China.

China can point to our destruction while dealing with 3rd World African
countries. They can show how their form of government is the same as ours.
They can tell the Africans that it's okay to be a semi-brutal dictatorship. As
a result the Chinese government can get along with new trade partners better
than the US.

~~~
brilliantcode
I don't see any evidence to support what you wrote. Division? Yes.

It's more likely that we are seeing an emboldened China that is completely
oblivious to the nature of capitalism and it's incompatibility with a
centralized economy in the long run.

I feel like we are going to deal with multiple Chinese states when the
communist party inevitably loses it's grip on the populace.

It will be just like the old times, when China consisted of competing Kingdoms
fighting for resources which really propelled it to reach hegemony in Asia.

~~~
virmundi
Look at the US. We have a surveillance State. The US government keeps tabs on
everyone. Do they care? Probably not, but you have a file. The British won't
allow locking blades. They too have a surveillance farther along than the US'.
Australia is the same. The Indians would if they could, but their corruption
holds them back.

~~~
brilliantcode
at least our organs are intact and not being harvested by the government.

------
hohohmm
Why am I seeing stuff like this on Hacker News? Which part of it is relevant?

~~~
ionised
Relevant to what?

~~~
kelvin0
To Hacking ...

------
rodionos
Not that I think the subject is not important, but is this really topical for
HN?

On the other hand, it has 100+ votes, so perhaps HN demographics is changing.

~~~
samwilliams
I think the HN crowd has always been interested in this sort of stuff? It
certainly has since I started reading it (~7 years ago). One of the things
that I like about HN is that we are not completely inward looking.

From the guidelines:

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
> more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
> answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
> evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or
> disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's
> probably off-topic.

You could certainly say that a BBC group being forced to sign a confession for
attempting to conduct an interview 'gratifies one's intellectual curiosity'
about the world, but it could certainly fall under 'Most stories about
politics, or crime', too.

Either way, as you point out, once a post has over 100 points you probably
have your answer!

~~~
rodionos

      > once a post has over 100 points you probably have your answer!
    

It seems that we both agree that it's an Off-Topic article at face value and
yet it is On-Topic based on the votes. The votes in effect override the second
criteria of relevance, not unlike the final clause in Azimov's law of
robotics.

Hence I'm genuinely curious about any shifts in the audience demographics that
are occurring.

