Then China must feel real threatened. According to this, it’s against the law in China to even say you don’t agree with the law.
“A citizen, when exercising the right of freedom of the press, shall abide by the Constitution and the law, and shall not oppose the basic principles established by the Constitution or damage the interests of the State, the society or the collective, or the lawful freedom and rights of other citizens.”
A million Uyghurs, whose only apparent crime is being Muslim, have been sent to labor camps and undergone forced sterilization.
Tiananmen Square started out as people peacefully protesting government corruption, and ended in the state murdering them.
With respect to free speech, there’s not even a comparison there with respect to America. It’s not “potato potato”.
it’s against the law in China to even say you don’t agree with the law
Your link doesn’t support this, and it’s nonsense on its face, anyway.
“Do not oppose the basic principles established by the Constitution” is not “you can’t even say you disagree with the law,” as anyone familiar with the difference between a constitution and subordinate forms of laws (e.g., statutes) can tell you. And of course you obviously can say the constitution should be changed; how else do you think they amended it in 2018?
A million Uyghurs, whose only apparent crime is being Muslim, have been sent to labor camps and undergone forced sterilization.
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop.
The “forced sterilization” nonsense is especially silly when even NATOpedia says otherwise. As part of China’s affirmative action policies, the Uyghurs and other ethic minorities were excepted from the One-Child policy, and in Xinjiang they have grown in numbers relative to Hans as a result, and this happened similarly with other ethnic minorities.
We see here for example the evolution of public opinion in regards to China. In 2019, the ‘Uyghur genocide’ was broken by the media (Buzzfeed, of all outlets). In this story, we saw the machine I described up until now move in real time. Suddenly, newspapers, TV, websites were all flooded with stories about the ‘genocide’, all day, every day. People whom we’d never heard of before were brought in as experts — Adrian Zenz, to name just one; a man who does not even speak a word of Chinese.
Organizations were suddenly becoming very active and important. The World Uyghur Congress, a very serious-sounding NGO, is actually an NED Front operating out of Germany […]. From their official website, they declare themselves to be the sole legitimate representative of all Uyghurs — presumably not having asked Uyghurs in Xinjiang what they thought about that.
The WUC also has ties to the Grey Wolves, a fascist paramilitary group in Turkey, through the father of their founder, Isa Yusuf Alptekin.
Documents came out from NGOs to further legitimize the media reporting. This is how a report from the very professional-sounding China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) came to exist. They claimed ‘up to 1.3 million’ Uyghurs were imprisoned in camps. What they didn’t say was how they got this number: they interviewed a total of 10 people from rural Xinjiang and asked them to estimate how many people might have been taken away. They then extrapolated the guesstimates they got and arrived at the 1.3 million figure.
Sanctions were enacted against China — Xinjiang cotton for example had trouble finding buyers after Western companies were pressured into boycotting it. Instead of helping fight against the purported genocide, this act actually made life more difficult for the people of Xinjiang who depend on this trade for their livelihood (as we all do depend on our skills to make a livelihood).
Any attempt China made to defend itself was met with more suspicion. They invited a UN delegation which was blocked by the US. The delegation eventually made it there, but three years later. The Arab League also visited Xinjiang and actually commended China on their policies — aimed at reducing terrorism through education and social integration, not through bombing like we tend to do in the West.
Tiananmen Square started out as people peacefully protesting government corruption, and ended in the state murdering them.
A million Uyghurs, whose only apparent crime is being Muslim, have been sent to labor camps and undergone forced sterilization.
Do you know the sources of these claims? Because you’re repeating stuff that was first spread around by a German Christian nationalist (a euphemism) employed by a cia front group, which had already been debunked, and could be debunked by anyone looking at his methodology who is able to read mandarin.
Why is this myth pushed so hard by western countries which slaughter Muslims by the millions, and are engaged in genocide against a majority Muslim population as we speak?
Why do Muslim delegations visiting uniformly support the way China has treated its minority Muslim populations? Before you say sectarianism, investigate and realize that the delegations were intentionally multi-sectarian.
Tiananmen Square started out as people peacefully protesting government corruption, and ended in the state murdering them.
How violently do you think the US would have responded to US protestors trying to overthrow the government when they start burning and lynching to death unarmed soldiers? You can still find photos online of mutilated PLA soldiers corpses from june 2nd. 300 or so dead, including the soldiers that were killed, seems pretty light. Oh wait, the US military would never show up to a protest not armed to the teeth, silly me.
Just produce some evidence. I’m sure it’s easy, it’s not like you’d have to resort to something weird like pointing at a fraction of a percent difference between censuses as evidence of a genocide.
Just to be clear, that was sarcasm and is what the allegations of genocide are entirely based upon - dig into any allegations of uygher genocide and you can link back to Adrian Zenz’s “study”.
To be clear, I never said “genocide”. I honestly don’t know that that word applies to this situation.
For evidence that what’s going on is not good, here’s one of the first hits I find on searching the internet. It mentions a tribunal in the UK, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International all reaching similar conclusions and I find no mention of Adrian Zenz in the article or on the tribunal’s web page nor any mention of population change.
Then China must feel real threatened. According to this, it’s against the law in China to even say you don’t agree with the law.
“A citizen, when exercising the right of freedom of the press, shall abide by the Constitution and the law, and shall not oppose the basic principles established by the Constitution or damage the interests of the State, the society or the collective, or the lawful freedom and rights of other citizens.”
A million Uyghurs, whose only apparent crime is being Muslim, have been sent to labor camps and undergone forced sterilization.
Tiananmen Square started out as people peacefully protesting government corruption, and ended in the state murdering them.
With respect to free speech, there’s not even a comparison there with respect to America. It’s not “potato potato”.
Your link doesn’t support this, and it’s nonsense on its face, anyway.
“Do not oppose the basic principles established by the Constitution” is not “you can’t even say you disagree with the law,” as anyone familiar with the difference between a constitution and subordinate forms of laws (e.g., statutes) can tell you. And of course you obviously can say the constitution should be changed; how else do you think they amended it in 2018?
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop.
The “forced sterilization” nonsense is especially silly when even NATOpedia says otherwise. As part of China’s affirmative action policies, the Uyghurs and other ethic minorities were excepted from the One-Child policy, and in Xinjiang they have grown in numbers relative to Hans as a result, and this happened similarly with other ethnic minorities.
.
The blueprint of regime change operations
Do you know the sources of these claims? Because you’re repeating stuff that was first spread around by a German Christian nationalist (a euphemism) employed by a cia front group, which had already been debunked, and could be debunked by anyone looking at his methodology who is able to read mandarin.
Why is this myth pushed so hard by western countries which slaughter Muslims by the millions, and are engaged in genocide against a majority Muslim population as we speak?
Why do Muslim delegations visiting uniformly support the way China has treated its minority Muslim populations? Before you say sectarianism, investigate and realize that the delegations were intentionally multi-sectarian.
How violently do you think the US would have responded to US protestors trying to overthrow the government when they start burning and lynching to death unarmed soldiers? You can still find photos online of mutilated PLA soldiers corpses from june 2nd. 300 or so dead, including the soldiers that were killed, seems pretty light. Oh wait, the US military would never show up to a protest not armed to the teeth, silly me.
<rolls eyes>
Just produce some evidence. I’m sure it’s easy, it’s not like you’d have to resort to something weird like pointing at a fraction of a percent difference between censuses as evidence of a genocide.
Just to be clear, that was sarcasm and is what the allegations of genocide are entirely based upon - dig into any allegations of uygher genocide and you can link back to Adrian Zenz’s “study”.
To be clear, I never said “genocide”. I honestly don’t know that that word applies to this situation.
For evidence that what’s going on is not good, here’s one of the first hits I find on searching the internet. It mentions a tribunal in the UK, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International all reaching similar conclusions and I find no mention of Adrian Zenz in the article or on the tribunal’s web page nor any mention of population change.
Maybe if you tried even the briefest line of investigation into who any of the groups named are and how they reached their conclusions you wouldn’t be embarrassing yourself by naming organisations that are very publically recorded as basing their opinions on his work.
You should be embarrassed at how little effort it took me to find that link.
lol
guess its fine for you to make claims but not fine for others to make counter claims. the free market of ideas at work.
Yep, that’s it.
hey, at least you’re honest