NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm surprised there's been no thread about this yet. I've been following the torch's lurch from protest to protest to protest with some interest, and mild amusement.

Here's where it's been, where it's going, and a brief overview of protests.

1) Olympia (Greece). Reporters Without Borders disrupts the ceremony for the lighting of the Olympic flame (http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2008/04/08/robert-menard-le-grain-de-sable-des-jo_1032280_3236.html), protesting against human rights violations in China.

2) Athens. Protests (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/world/30cnd-greece.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin), calling for an end to human rights abuses in Tibet.

3) Beijing

4) Almaty (Kazakhstan). Students tell foreign media (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h8YeAJ0bnwe7pnQi_cGKLzCfFqAQD8VPR51O0) they support protests in favour of Tibet, but that they are not protesting themselves because they fear a crackdown by Kazakhstani authorities.

5) Istanbul. Uighur protestors try to disrupt the relay, and are arrested by the police (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/03/europe/3turkey-torch.php).

6) St Petersburg. Small-scale demonstrations. Protestors are arrested. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/olympic-flame-crosses-russias-imperial-capital/2008/04/05/1207249556697.html)

7) London. Wide-scale protests (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7332942.stm).

8) Paris. Wide-scale protests (http://www.france24.com/en/20080408-olympic-torch-inflames-protesters-san-francisco-2008-beijing-olympics-usa&navi=MONDE).

9) San Fransisco. Protests. Two torchbearers display the Tibetan flag. (http://cbs5.com/local/olympic.torch.crowds.2.695825.html) The relay is re-routed to avoid further troubles.

10) Dar es Salaam (Tanzania). Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai, who was supposed to carry the torch, refuses to do so (http://www.france24.com/en/20080413-olympic-torch-relay-tanzania&navi=MONDE), in protest against human rights violations in Tibet.

Upcoming relays:

11) Muscat (Oman), tomorrow.

12) Islamabad.

13) New Delhi. Baichung Bhutia has refused to take part (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/india/2008/04/01/149897/India's-soccer.htm) in carrying the torch, to protest against human rights violations in Tibet. China requested that India ban protests and gathering of Indian Tibetans during the relay, a request which India rejected, reportedly leading (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23524744-2703,00.html) to a deterioration in relations between the two countries.

14) Bangkok.

15) Kuala Lumpur.

16) Jakarta.

17) Canberra. The Australian authorities have said (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2200041.htm) they will refuse to authorise Chine flame minders to accompany the relay.

18) Nagano (Japan). Japanese authorities have issued the same statement as their Australian counterparts.

19) Seoul.

20) Pyongyang.

21) Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnamese bloggers have advocated demonstations during the delay, to protest in response to territorial disputes between the two countries.

22) Hong Kong. Protests are expected (http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=63975&sid=18381161&con_type=1&d_str=20080407&fc=1), in defence of democracy.

23) Macau.

And then the internal relays in China.

I'm curious to know what everyone thinks of the protests. I'm rather torn, myself. On the one hand, reacting against the Olympic torch, theoretically a symbol of international peace and cooperation, would seem to send a rather muddled and possibly counter-productive message. On the other hand, for the most part I'm pleased and relieved to see that people aren't just letting China do whatever it wants without reaction or comment. The protests have caused a media storm, and for the most part I'm inclined to think that's a good thing.

Well there was a forum that was phrased to be anti-Olympics on here.

Personally I am glad about the protests, China's people have had to put up with their shit for WAY to long.

EDIT: I don't view attacks on the torch to be directed at the Olympics as a whole, which is a wonderful symbol of nations coming together, but rather an attack on Beijing's Olympics, which they do not deserve.

Ariddia is back! :D

EDIT: I don't view attacks on the torch to be directed at the Olympics as a whole, which is a wonderful symbol of nations coming together, but rather an attack on Beijing's Olympics, which they do not deserve.

Sadly, it may not have much impact, at least in the short term. I've been reading the Chinese media online, and they're just spinning it and/or minimising it. And there doesn't seem to be all that much anti-government feeling in the PRC.

Ariddia is back! :D

Oh, I just toss a topic at you all now and then, then fade away again. ;)

I find the chinese gaurds around the flame to be a little odd so I'm quite glad that Australia is refusing to let them participate. Surely only the police force of the country should have the responsibility of managing the crowd?

Just as a side note, what do you guys think about the Tibet torch that started in India?

I've been reading the Chinese media online, and they're just spinning it and/or minimising it. And there doesn't seem to be all that much anti-government feeling in the PRC.


I think the Chinese population now knows that their media is very restricted (not to say "controlled") by the government. So the Chinese probably know by now that the world hates the idea of having the Olympics in their oh so evil city. Not that there is anything they can do against it themselves without being imprisonned.

Sadly, it may not have much impact, at least in the short term. I've been reading the Chinese media online, and they're just spinning it and/or minimising it. And there doesn't seem to be all that much anti-government feeling in the PRC.



Oh, I just toss a topic at you all now and then, then fade away again. ;)

Well, tbh the Tibetan have made the issue to be more nationalistic and a more direct a confrontation against the Han group rather than solely against the CCP. It's no wonder the CCP can spin it easily with so many support of chinese emigre worldwide.

I think the relay is extremely ill prepared. The only reason CCP still insist to carry on the original long route is to save the party's face. The longest relay have now backfired to be the one of most anti-china global protest. The incident also shows how pathetic chinese foreign ministry is. Barely any countries are in full support of the request of the ministry. I think the foreign ministry really need to have some solid foundation with a country first before promoting something like the Olympic relay. I mean places like Vietnam, India etc have disputed problems with china. They can't expect everything just goes away and everyone be friendly with china just because china pass its torch relay through the country. It's very naive attitude for a foreign policy of an emerging power.

You now that when they where assigning the olympics for this year china said that it was going to have greatly improved its civil rites and now look at them they have done nothing about it.

China and the freaks that decided to hold the olympics in Beijing just get what they asked for. China has gotten way with murder in Tibet too long. About time someone did something like this..

EDIT: I don't view attacks on the torch to be directed at the Olympics as a whole, which is a wonderful symbol of nations coming together, but rather an attack on Beijing's Olympics, which they do not deserve.
I agree with this. I hadn't even considered the message being "muddled", like you said in your OP, Ariddia. I don't think even the Chinese spin machine could make people (well, outside China, at least) believe that those protesters are attacking "the Olympic spirit" or whatever.

I would have thought it an utter shame had there been no protests. And I found the fact that the flame actually went out (in Paris) a very nicely symbolic thing.

I'm torn between wishing everybody would just boycott the whole thing and thinking that's maybe not the best idea because it might only serve to offend the Chinese people who haven't really done anything wrong.
But, I don't know, how can there be Olympic Games going on while in the same country people are shot and disappeared into prisons?

I would like to state, for the record, that WYTYG is my spokesperson for this issue.

Thank you for your time.

Well, tbh the Tibetan have made the issue to be more nationalistic and a more direct a confrontation against the Han group rather than solely against the CCP. It's no wonder the CCP can spin it easily with so many support of chinese emigre worldwide.


Yes, that's true. Western media sometimes leave out the nastier aspects of the pro-Tibet side. But on the whole the situation is one of repression by the PRC, and most people outside China realise that.

I agree with this. I hadn't even considered the message being "muddled", like you said in your OP, Ariddia. I don't think even the Chinese spin machine could make people (well, outside China, at least) believe that those protesters are attacking "the Olympic spirit" or whatever.

I don't think they really care about persuading people outside China. Except the Chinese diaspora.


I would have thought it an utter shame had there been no protests.

As would I. Which is why, for the most part, I'm glad they're happening (with just a few nagging reservations).


I'm torn between wishing everybody would just boycott the whole thing and thinking that's maybe not the best idea because it might only serve to offend the Chinese people who haven't really done anything wrong.

I was in China a few months ago, and there's a lot of hype about the Olympics over there. Chinese people are excited and very proud about hosting the Games. The problem is, I think a lot of them genuinely do believe that their government is doing nothing wrong in Tibet, and they get hurt and offended when told otherwise. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a vast majority of Chinese people would genuinely not understand a boycott. They would see it as an incomprehensible insult.

Of course, the Chinese government would understand it perfectly well, and it could give them a much-needed wake-up call from the world. But it would create a great strain between the West and Chinese people.


But, I don't know, how can there be Olympic Games going on while in the same country people are shot and disappeared into prisons?

In a sane world, everyone would be asking this question. Unfortunately, the answer seems to be politics and business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twHzXN3kNTs

Meh.

I was in China a few months ago, and there's a lot of hype about the Olympics over there. Chinese people are excited and very proud about hosting the Games. The problem is, I think a lot of them genuinely do believe that their government is doing nothing wrong in Tibet, and they get hurt and offended when told otherwise. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a vast majority of Chinese people would genuinely not understand a boycott. They would see it as an incomprehensible insult.
Yeah, that's like what I've gathered from news reports.

In a sane world, everyone would be asking this question. Unfortunately, the answer seems to be politics and business.
I know! And that's really what drives me nuts! I mean, yeah, I can see that it sucks for the athletes who have trained for this and bla bla bla, not to mention the tons of money hanging on the Olympics - but seriously?? And then this week word got out that many German athletes (surely other nations, too, I just heard it about here) are planning on at least carrying some sort of sign thingies touting human rights (not even mentioning Tibet, AFAIK) at the opening ceremony - and the only reaction from the national Olympic committee is to make a brochure telling them in detail what's allowed and what not so they're not being disqualified for it by the IOC...

The IOC gave the games to a country like China so they really should have planned on how to deal with situation like this. But they haven't. They were (are?) just going to sit it out.

Which of course brings up the fundamental question here: why the hell did anybody ever think giving the Olympics to China was a good idea in the first place?

*frustrated*

I’ve also been watching the relay/protests, and have been amused no end by them. The highlight so far has to be Konnie Huq’s troubled leg of the run in London.

Weirdest thing? The ominous Chinese security guards (see below), clad in blue, who surrounded the torch in London and other places (although I believe some nations have refused them access) and apparently had massive security clearance in the UK. Not only were they pushing protesters aside, but at one point during the relay, they were shoving the police out of the way!

I don;t know about anybody else, but scenes like this:

http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w14/img.180075_t.jpg

and this:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2008/04/06/olympic372.jpg

are turning the whole thing into a farce.

Which of course brings up the fundamental question here: why the hell did anybody ever think giving the Olympics to China was a good idea in the first place?

Because it will create an atmosphere where human rights will flourish when the epitome of sportsmanship arrives in the country, and the government won't be able to be naughty or some such drivel...

Because it will create an atmosphere where human rights will flourish when the epitome of sportsmanship arrives in the country, and the government won't be able to be naughty or some such drivel...

Yeah....

Coincidentally, an hour-long political panel on the topic just now started on TV.

*watches*

It's wrong to have Human Rights and other protests against China. It's even worse when news medias in the West and United States choose their sides against China. Even most worse, politics should stay out of the games.

China and the freaks that decided to hold the olympics in Beijing just get what they asked for. China has gotten way with murder in Tibet too long. About time someone did something like this..

Murder in Tibet. Heh, more like hunting down radical rebels. It's the same way how the FBI hunts down foreign spies.

I find the chinese gaurds around the flame to be a little odd so I'm quite glad that Australia is refusing to let them participate. Surely only the police force of the country should have the responsibility of managing the crowd?

I think it's brutal that London and Paris let the torch be carried through a narrow street, as in very narrow, allowing the flame to be extinguished three times. I'm sure there is more to that.

And I think you should listen to neutral nations on these issues, like Australia.

Even most worse, politics should stay out of the games.
With an event this international, attended by almost every significant figure in world governance, that’s simply impossible.

I’ve also been watching the relay/protests, and have been amused no end by them. The highlight so far has to be Konnie Huq’s troubled leg of the run in London.

Weirdest thing? The ominous Chinese security guards (see below), clad in blue, who surrounded the torch in London and other places (although I believe some nations have refused them access) and apparently had massive security clearance in the UK. Not only were they pushing protesters aside, but at one point during the relay, they were shoving the police out of the way!

I don;t know about anybody else, but scenes like this:

http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w14/img.180075_t.jpg

and this:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2008/04/06/olympic372.jpg

are turning the whole thing into a farce.

I guess none of you guys have ever thought of this, nor has your government allowed you to see it. During London, Paris, and San Francisco, there were more Chinese supporters than Tibetan/anti-China protesters during the relays. I went to the one in San Francisco, and I absolutely saw first-hand experience that the pro-China supporters outnumbered the anti-China protesters.

BBC, CNN, and the other Western medias didn't show the pro-China supporters. Instead, I only saw anti-China protesters. However, CCTV showed the pro-China supporters.

Yet, I still get questioned from people why didn't CCTV show the anti-China protesters... I asked them why didn't CNN or BBC show the pro-China supporters either, and I left them speechless.

With an event this international, attended by almost every significant figure in world governance, that’s simply impossible.

It's possible.

Just demand the United States to stop project funds to Tibetan organizations and their operations will cease to exist.

I guess none of you guys have ever thought of this, nor has your government allowed you to see it. During London, Paris, and San Francisco, there were more Chinese supporters than Tibetan/anti-China protesters during the relays. I went to the one in San Francisco, and I absolutely saw first-hand experience that the pro-China supporters outnumbered the anti-China protesters.

BBC, CNN, and the other Western medias didn’t show the pro-China supporters. Instead, I only saw anti-China protesters.
The you can’t have watched for very long. Both CNN and the BBC showed both pro-Tibet and pro-China protesters, and the BBC had an interview with some of the pro-China protesters, asking them their positions.

It’s possible.

Just demand the United States to stop project funds to Tibetan organizations and their operations will cease to exist.
How exactly would that stop the Olympics from being politicised?

The you can’t have watched for very long. Both CNN and the BBC showed both pro-Tibet and pro-China protesters, and the BBC had an interview with some of the pro-China protesters, asking them their positions.


How exactly would that stop the Olympics from being politicised?

CCTV interviews anti-China and even people off the streets in China, too. And don't be saying "the government controls them" crap.

How exactly? How about we just stop making this issue a big fuss, and it won't be political.

You have to remember, when Tibetan protesters tried another uprise in Tibet, no one really cared about what's going on. I mean, who cares? There's rebels in Africa too. Then after a week of broadcasting the uprise, even when the videos and recordings were all taken a week ago, they continued to broadcast it. Then came people who actually came to support the anti-China protests as the messages and broadcasts kept popping out.

If the media would have just broadcasted it for a day, then I'm find with that. But they broadcasted it the whole week. Thats propaganda.

It's wrong to have Human Rights and other protests against China.
It is? How so?

It's even worse when news medias in the West and United States choose their sides against China.
With the exception of a couple right wing news channels in the US, our news media isn't in the business of choosing sides against anyone but in the business of reporting objectively. If China comes out of that looking bad the problem lies with China, not with the objective reporting.

Even most worse, politics should stay out of the games.
So the Olympic Games should just go ahead as the happy happy joy joy PR event China wants them as while protesters die in Tibet? But wait, right, those are only... how did you say again?
Murder in Tibet. Heh, more like hunting down radical rebels. It's the same way how the FBI hunts down foreign spies.
Right...

I think it's brutal that London and Paris let the torch be carried through a narrow street, as in very narrow, allowing the flame to be extinguished three times. I'm sure there is more to that.
ZOMG yes! It's an evil international conspiracy by the Dalai Lama and his fellow radical rebels! And the Western world is in on it!

And I think you should listen to neutral nations on these issues, like Australia.
Are you sure you meant to say that in response to Chumblywumbly's post? Because it's what he said. So I'm not sure why you would say it.

I guess none of you guys have ever thought of this, nor has your government allowed you to see it.
Our media outlets are not run by the government.

It's possible.

Just demand the United States to stop project funds to Tibetan organizations and their operations will cease to exist.
You see me speechless.

Yeah....

Coincidentally, an hour-long political panel on the topic just now started on TV.

*watches*

You should have given us a live update and a running commentary!

CCTV interviews anti-China and even people off the streets in China, too. And don’t be saying “the government controls them” crap.
Could you reiterate what you meant to say here? I am one confused bunny.

EDIT: Ahh, I thought you meant Close Circuit TV, rather than the Chinese state-run station. So, why is saying the government controls a government-controlled TV station 'crap'?

How exactly? How about we just stop making this issue a big fuss, and it won’t be political.
I think you and I have a different conception of what ‘political’ means.

If the media would have just broadcasted it for a day, then I’m find with that. But they broadcasted it the whole week. Thats propaganda.
Propaganda?

Selective reporting, perhaps, but how is international coverage of some fairly dodgy practices of the Chinese state ‘propaganda’?

What I don't get about all this protest, is not that it's happening, but why the Canadian government thinks that they're going to face the same thing for the 2010 winter Olympics, and therefore are refusing to have an international leg for the torch bearing. I mean, it's not as though people DON'T have things to protest about they way Canada does business...but is the gov't really admitting that? Or do they just think this sort of protest is some new fad that will happen regardless of the country the Olympics are hosted in?

I think it's brutal that London and Paris let the torch be carried through a narrow street, as in very narrow, allowing the flame to be extinguished three times. I'm sure there is more to that.


You're confused.

On at least two occasions in Paris, the Chinese "flame attendants" extinguished the torch in wide, open areas, not "very narrow streets". See here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-MhlRbwbA8&feature=related) (at 00:14) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK75t46XVag&feature=related) (at 02:21).

I guess none of you guys have ever thought of this, nor has your government allowed you to see it.

This may come as a huge shock to you, but in the UK, France and the US, as in other Western countries, the media are not censored by the government in that way.


BBC, CNN, and the other Western medias didn't show the pro-China supporters. Instead, I only saw anti-China protesters.

Yes they did. I'll grant you one thing: that Western media often de-emphasised pro-Chinese government supporters in their reports, compared with protestors. Conversely, however, Chinese media did not mention the peaceful protests or the support they received from the public, at all. There may have been some measure of bias in some Western media, yes, but Chinese media are far more heavily biased.

Seriously, I was watching the coverage of the Paris relay live on French TV, and they showed a lot of people waving the Chinese flag.

Agence France Presse (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRdAPwNWXODp85Qy2R8KEYzf4RdA) talks about people with Chinese flags. Funny how the Chinese media don't talk about the peaceful demonstrators with Tibetan flags, isn't it?

Oh, look! A picture of people with Chinese flags, in the French media (http://www.europe1.fr/informations/articles/1338629/flamme-olympique--un-tout-petit-tour-a-san-francisco-et-pui.html):

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/583/tbdha5.jpg

And then there's this, from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7335043.stm):

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/9091/tbd3qq6.jpg

But if you say the BBC didn't show pro-China supporters, I suppose somehow that's not really the Chinese flag...

On the other hand, I'm betting you didn't see many pictures like this one in the PRC state media...

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5028/tbd2mk3.jpg

Very strange, huh? I wonder why that could be...

Or this one:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4199/tbd4bo6.jpg

It's also from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7335043.stm). That's how the BBC covered the event: It showed both sides. Rather unlike Xinhua or CCTV.

What I don't get about all this protest, is not that it's happening, but why the Canadian government thinks that they're going to face the same thing for the 2010 winter Olympics, and therefore are refusing to have an international leg for the torch bearing. I mean, it's not as though people DON'T have things to protest about they way Canada does business...but is the gov't really admitting that? Or do they just think this sort of protest is some new fad that will happen regardless of the country the Olympics are hosted in?

A quick Google search on the topic yields a result which mentions potential protests over the seal hunt. Which is what first came to my mind as well.

Anyway. So, the political panel on TV is over. It was quite interesting even if it was mostly finger-pointing at the IOC and the NOC for not exerting more pressure on China earlier.

Some interesting points I took away from it:

- the Beijing bureau chief of the biggest German TV network was there and talked about the situation for journalists in China. He said that yes, they can in fact, for the first time ever, move freely in the country - except this really only goes for "moving about", not for anything else. Their phones are still being tapped, the people they talk to are still in danger because they talked to them, and if they want to go somewhere the government doesn't want them to go they just stop them by means of, oh, say a road conveniently blocked by a hastily erected construction site.

Also, more importantly, any newfound freedoms for the press are ONLY for foreign journalists. Chinese journalists have it harder than ever before.

He literally said that since the Olympic Games had been awarded to China, and especially in the last 2 years, the human rights situation inside China, for journalists, political dissidents and others, has actually gotten a lot worse.

So much for the Games bringing freedom and openness...

- they all agreed that an actual boycott wouldn't be a solution, not least because the Chinese people would never understand it (like Ariddia said above). Also, it wouldn't achieve anything in terms of support for Tibet or human rights in general.

- they brought up the Games' sponsors which are of course utterly mum on the topic. In Germany, the main sponsors are Adidas and Volkswagen; Volkswagen actually seems to be one of the main sponsors of the Games, period. They've poured millions into those games and of course try everything to keep them from being a giant PR disaster. The network invited representatives of both companies to the panel but the declined without giving a reason.

- one of the politicians present said that the IOC should stop the torch relay because all it is is a PR campaign for the Chinese government. The Beijing bureau chief said he thought it'd be better if the relay went on because at least this way, the Chinese government had to deal with the fall-out every single day. If it was scrapped, the protests would lose their outlet.

- The Bejing bureau chief also said that the Chinese government is cracking down so hard on Tibet and is reacting so strongly to any criticism (not just now but in general) because they're simply scared - scared that the Tibet situation could get out of control, Tibet could try to declare (or at least fight for) independence, and Western governments could actually support their independence. Which would give rise to all kinds of other independence movements away from China. Which is their nightmare, obviously.
That fear is also the reason for the forced destruction of Tibetan culture and religion - assimilate them so they don't rise up.
This might all be "Well, duh" to many of you but for me it was actually sort of new in that the conclusion from all this was that Western nations should actually reassure China that they would not support an independent Tibet - to assuage Chinese fears and get them to lay off destroying Tibet, basically. That's apparently also why the Dalai Lama doesn't support independence.
One of the politicians on the panel (the head of one of our states) has been friends with the Dalai Lama for many years and he said that he has been talking to the Chinese for years begging them to use the chance and start talks with the Tibetans while the Dalai Lama is still alive, i.e. while there is still a clear authority figure they can talk to who is against independence.
Just thought that was interesting.

ZOMG yes! It's an evil international conspiracy by the Dalai Lama and his fellow radical rebels! And the Western world is in on it!


Didn't you know it? The Dalai Lama designed the paths of the torch relays! His evil tentacles extend everywhere.

What I don't get about all this protest, is not that it's happening, but why the Canadian government thinks that they're going to face the same thing for the 2010 winter Olympics, and therefore are refusing to have an international leg for the torch bearing. I mean, it's not as though people DON'T have things to protest about they way Canada does business...but is the gov't really admitting that? Or do they just think this sort of protest is some new fad that will happen regardless of the country the Olympics are hosted in?

I remember hearing about that and being completely confusing. I mean, I know occasionally I hear someone call for a boycott of Canadian products due to seal-clubbing and so on, but a world-wide anti-Canadian protest movement about... well, anything really, seems unlikely. To put it mildly.

The whole talk about putting an end to future relays completely bypassed the point that China has issues in international public opinion which the next hosts (Canada and the UK) rather lack.

A quick Google search on the topic yields a result which mentions potential protests over the seal hunt. Which is the first thing which came to mind for me too.

Oh, for a list of things people could protest about...I could go on for pages. Aboriginal rights (the games are being held on unceded territory), our role in Afghanistan, etc etc etc...

But I'm wondering if the Canadian gov't just figures people will be so high on protest that they'll just do it to do in 2010...or if it recognises that there are legitimate concerns the global attention the Olympics brings will raise to the forefront.

Oh wait, it's not really about protests at all! It's about logistical problems (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d1ca5dcc-af80-483c-8693-6cedc56a34b8&k=46007). Canada is just so darn BIG that taking it overseas would exhaust people too much.

What I don't get about all this protest, is not that it's happening, but why the Canadian government thinks that they're going to face the same thing for the 2010 winter Olympics, and therefore are refusing to have an international leg for the torch bearing. I mean, it's not as though people DON'T have things to protest about they way Canada does business...but is the gov't really admitting that? Or do they just think this sort of protest is some new fad that will happen regardless of the country the Olympics are hosted in?
Oh my God, the Canadian government said that, too???

Because some guy from the German NOC said that, too, in regards to just future games in general, and I swear I wanted to bash my head into the frigging wall because how fucking stupid can you possibly be??!! He was all "Boo hoo, with all those evil people attacking the poor Olympic Torch, this is clearly the death knell for all future torch relays!"

It's, that's, it's... I can't even talk about it. It's that bad.

:headbang:

Conversely, however, Chinese media did not mention the peaceful protests or the support they received from the public, at all.


This is false as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD2gtgtNWX4&feature=related



But honestly, both sides are guilty of playing down opposing views. It's obvious even there that the network devoted more time to showing the support rather than the protests.

By the way, Leocardia, the BBC has interviewed Chinese people who oppose the protests (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7340987.stm). Now, could you perhaps give us a link to an interview of pro-Tibet protestors by Xinhua? Somehow, I imagine not.

You should have given us a live update and a running commentary!
:p

Sorry, but it didn't have any commercial breaks and I'm so totally lacking in the multi-tasking department.

Oh my God, the Canadian government said that, too???

Because some guy from the German NOC said that, too, in regards to just future games in general, and I swear I wanted to bash my head into the frigging wall because how fucking stupid can you possibly be??!! He was all "Boo hoo, with all those evil people attacking the poor Olympic Torch, this is clearly the death knell for all future torch relays!"

It's, that's, it's... I can't even talk about it. It's that bad.

:headbang:
It's like...the whole 'not talking about shit China is up to' extends to the point of willfully being blind to the reasons people are protesting. Do they really believe this shit?

Oh, for a list of things people could protest about...I could go on for pages. Aboriginal rights (the games are being held on unceded territory), our role in Afghanistan, etc etc etc...


How many of these issues would raise significant international attention? Certainly the war in Afghanistan, and maybe Aboriginal rights -- but probably only within the context of some other issue, like the seal hunt or general environmental concerns (EDIT: as this is what I have observed through my consumption of international news feeds, my primary source of information. Unfortunately, this does work to generalize and obscure other important issues, like land use/rights). And even then, I fear, probably not in Aboriginal peoples' favor.

Environment/Seal hunt/Aboriginal Rights seems like the strongest candidate, especially considering the Games' theme. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2010_Winter_Olympics_logo.svg)


But I'm wondering if the Canadian gov't just figures people will be so high on protest that they'll just do it to do in 2010...or if it recognises that there are legitimate concerns the global attention the Olympics brings will raise to the forefront.


I'd assume the latter, myself.

This is false as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD2gtgtNWX4&feature=related


Thank you for that video. I've just watched it, and you've missed my point. I never said that the Chinese media didn't show any protesting. I'm well aware that they did. I said:


Chinese media did not mention the peaceful protests or the support they received from the public, at all

I stand by what I said. I've read several articles in Xinhua, CCTV, Shanghai Daily, and the official Chinese website of the torch relay. None of them mention peaceful protests, none of them interview protestors, and none of them talk about the public support for protestors.

Your video shows it. In the video, we see only violent protestors, which is exactly what the Chinese government wants the Chinese people to believe about the protests. The Chinese reporters in that video interviewed only two French people - both of whom were carrying a Chinese flag(!), and both of whom not only opposed the protests, but said "Bravo, China!" and that protestors should "leave China alone".

If that's not biased reporting, I don't know what is.

Thank you for that video. I've just watched it, and you've missed my point. I never said that the Chinese media didn't show any protesting. I'm well aware that they did. I said:



I stand by what I said. I've read several articles in Xinhua, CCTV, Shanghai Daily, and the official Chinese website of the torch relay. None of them mention peaceful protests, none of them interview protestors, and none of them talk about the public support for protestors.

Your video shows it. In the video, we see only violent protestors, which is exactly what the Chinese government wants the Chinese people to believe about the protests. The Chinese reporters in that video interviewed only two French people - both of whom were carrying a Chinese flag(!), and both of whom not only opposed the protests, but said "Bravo, China!" and that protestors should "leave China alone".

If that's not biased reporting, I don't know what is.



Mmm, I see your point now, and I was fully aware that the few French interviewd ended up cheering China on anyway.


I'll have to go hunting for some mention of various peaceful protests from the official media then.

I could have sworn I've seen at least some passing reference to them, but I don't expect you to take my word for it. I have my work cut out for me, haha.

I'll have to go hunting for some mention of various peaceful protests from the official media then.

I could have sworn I've seen at least some passing reference to them, but I don't expect you to take my word for it. I have my work cut out for me, haha.

Heh. Good luck.

By the way, I've been contributing somewhat to the Wikipedia article about the torch relay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay). Almost all of the section on Chinese media coverage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay#Media_coverage) is by me. If anyone wants to improve the article, feel free...

Could you reiterate what you meant to say here? I am one confused bunny.

EDIT: Ahh, I thought you meant Close Circuit TV, rather than the Chinese state-run station. So, why is saying the government controls a government-controlled TV station 'crap'?


I think you and I have a different conception of what ‘political’ means.


Propaganda?

Selective reporting, perhaps, but how is international coverage of some fairly dodgy practices of the Chinese state ‘propaganda’?

Chummy said CNN and BBC interviews pro-China supporters, which I don't believe. If they have done so, then CCTV has done so as well. It's not assumption, I saw.

And yes, propaganda. Having to only broadcast an issue and only broadcast messages that makes China look worse than it already is. Remember, despite all you see that Tibetan protesters against the Chinese control in Tibet, you need to know that China is still working on economic development in Tibet and that there are more positive things that just a genocidal rampage, as what our news medias describe it to be.

This may come as a huge shock to you, but in the UK, France and the US, as in other Western countries, the media are not censored by the government in that way.



Yes they did. I'll grant you one thing: that Western media often de-emphasised pro-Chinese government supporters in their reports, compared with protestors. Conversely, however, Chinese media did not mention the peaceful protests or the support they received from the public, at all. There may have been some measure of bias in some Western media, yes, but Chinese media are far more heavily biased.


This may become a huge shock to you, but the United States is widely known for its media distortion.

I agree that the Chinese media is heavily pro-China, since it's state-run. Rather that they need to provide a powerful edge to keep Western medias from converting their own citizens against their nation as well. More like keeping internal politics out, and international politics in.

Thats why when I was in Hong Kong, I wasn't into politics, but rather live a more relaxed life.

Chummy said CNN and BBC interviews pro-China supporters, which I don't believe.

I've already proved to you that the BBC has done so (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13606755&postcount=38). See for yourself (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7340987.stm).


If they have done so, then CCTV has done so as well.

Yes, I'm well aware that CCTV interviews pro-China supporters...


And yes, propaganda. Having to only broadcast an issue and only broadcast messages that makes China look worse than it already is. Remember, despite all you see that Tibetan protesters against the Chinese control in Tibet, you need to know that China is still working on economic development in Tibet and that there are more positive things that just a genocidal rampage, as what our news medias describe it to be.

I'm well aware of that. And you may be surprised to hear that I agree, to an extent: the Western media do tend to leave out or minimise some aspects of what's going on in Tibet. But for the most part, the Chinese media is far, far more biased than the Western media, and that's indisputable. Whatever the complexities of the situation in Tibet, repression by the PRC, and violation of human rights by the PRC, are well-documented facts.

Suggesting that the Western media is, on the whole, more biased than the Chinese media is utterly absurd.

Chummy said CNN and BBC interviews pro-China supporters, which I don’t believe.
I said both the BBC and CNN had shown pro-China protesters, while the BBC had interviewed some.

See for yourself (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm).

And here’s (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7344895.stm) a report about claims that Western media is ‘demonising’ China. I don't claim that the BBC or any other Western media outlet is unbiased, that's just lunacy, but to claim that they have ignored pro-China protesters completely is plain wrong.

I'm well aware of that. And you may be surprised to hear that I agree, to an extent: the Western media do tend to leave out or minimise some aspects of what's going on in Tibet. But for the most part, the Chinese media is far, far more biased than the Western media, and that's indisputable. Whatever the complexities of the situation in Tibet, repression by the PRC, and violation of human rights by the PRC, are well-documented facts.

Suggesting that the Western media is, on the whole, more biased than the Chinese media is utterly absurd.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j8dIzU90xJGmtZ0MWjEswwn1Jp7A

Our nation has removed China as its top human rights abusers.

This may become a huge shock to you, but the United States is widely known for its media distortion.

More specifically? US Conservatives howl about alleged "liberal bias" in the media, while the left point to FOX News's right-wing bias. It's not as if media bias in the US were all pulling in the same direction. By contrast, Chinese media all say exactly the same thing. When I read articles from Xinhua, CCTV and Shanghai Daily, I get the impression that the same person has written all of them.


Rather that they need to provide a powerful edge to keep Western medias from converting their own citizens against their nation as well.

If they wanted to do that, they could do so by being objective in their reporting. As it is, Chinese media come across as a joke in the West. Their bias is so blatant that it's amusing, which surely makes it counter-productive.


Thats why when I was in Hong Kong, I wasn't into politics, but rather live a more relaxed life.

How nice for you. I still prefer to take an interest in politics. And I do so by reading up on events from a wide variety of sources by people with opposite viewpoints.

Heh. Good luck.

By the way, I've been contributing somewhat to the Wikipedia article about the torch relay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay). Almost all of the section on Chinese media coverage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay#Media_coverage) is by me. If anyone wants to improve the article, feel free...



While I continue my possibly futile search, a thought just occurred to me.

While the state media might be devoid of references to the other vocal, but comparatively peaceful protests in support of an independent Tibet, certain websites, like the English BBC were recently unblocked from the Great Firewall of China.

I understand that this isn't a definitive sign that the news reporting in China is becoming more open, and it's more likely a sign that China's censoring is simply becoming more sophisticated, and selective, blocking out explicit references to protest, and Tibet rather than blocking the entire website, however, this offers something of a contradiction in China's censorship policy.

State media likely avoids references to protest, even peaceful ones, yet the western media, reporting both sides, is not blocked, even the select pages referring to the protest.

See for yourself (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm).

And here’s (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7344895.stm) a report about claims that Western media is ‘demonising’ China. I don't claim that the BBC or any other Western media outlet is unbiased, that's just lunacy, but to claim that they have ignored pro-China protesters completely is plain wrong.

I'd almost forgotten about that one.

The most important British media organisation reporting on the Chinese ambassador to the UK criticising Western media bias.

Not only that, but The Telegraph published an opinion piece written by the Chinese ambassador (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/12/do1210.xml), so that the ambassador could speak directly to the British public and give the Chinese viewpoint.

The Western media, publishing criticism of the Western media by the Chinese.

Now, Leocardia, can you give us an example of a Chinese media publishing criticism of the Chinese media by a Western ambassador? Or, in fact, any kind of criticism of the Chinese media by anyone?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j8dIzU90xJGmtZ0MWjEswwn1Jp7A

Our nation has removed China as its top human rights abusers.

Yes, and I'm sure that's because they've stopped abusing human rights. Not because of political and economic reasons. Surely not. :rolleyes:

While I continue my possibly futile search, a thought just occurred to me.

While the state media might be devoid of references to the other vocal, but comparatively peaceful protests in support of an independent Tibet, certain websites, like the English BBC were recently unblocked from the Great Firewall of China.

I understand that this isn't a definitive sign that the news reporting in China is becoming more open, and it's more likely a sign that China's censoring is simply becoming more sophisticated, and selective, blocking out explicit references to protest, and Tibet rather than blocking the entire website, however, this offers something of a contradiction in China's censorship policy.

State media likely avoids references to protest, even peaceful ones, yet the western media, reporting both sides, is not blocked, even the select pages referring to the protest.

The online media may not be blocked. I have to say I don't know. But TV broadcasting is still censored. A French reporter in Beijing a few days ago was saying that the BBC broadcasting of protests was cut and censored in China.

It is? How so?


With the exception of a couple right wing news channels in the US, our news media isn't in the business of choosing sides against anyone but in the business of reporting objectively. If China comes out of that looking bad the problem lies with China, not with the objective reporting.


So the Olympic Games should just go ahead as the happy happy joy joy PR event China wants them as while protesters die in Tibet? But wait, right, those are only... how did you say again?

Right...


ZOMG yes! It's an evil international conspiracy by the Dalai Lama and his fellow radical rebels! And the Western world is in on it!


Are you sure you meant to say that in response to Chumblywumbly's post? Because it's what he said. So I'm not sure why you would say it.


Our media outlets are not run by the government.


You see me speechless.

Western media that's not under government are simply pro-itself therefore pro-commercial. There are some evidence by the CCTV that the CNN has distorted photos etc. If there's no financial support, I think the Tibet issue would become less covered - hyperthetical example decrease from 40 minutes to 20 minutes coverage etc. Tibetan issue is actually not really news worthy as it's not new and neither will china commit any actual effort. Infact, continuously the current agenda might even hurt the media's image. But now a media war exists as what they reporting are not progress but attacking different parties' positions. Both sides are fuelling the issue. For example, CCTV digging up Cold War stuff and Western media interviewing Dalai Lama's rep who just repeating the same stuff over and over again. I doubt any media would engage themselves into war without any finance support. I think it's actually impossible to truely report anything objectively in this day and age because without finance you just don't exist. Withdrawing finance support will decrease the coverage, just like Iraq. If it's not interest in the US govt, media wouldn't give too much focus for financial reasons. Just look at the Xinjiang urghurs, no great media coverage of their opperations.

What I don't get about all this protest, is not that it's happening, but why the Canadian government thinks that they're going to face the same thing for the 2010 winter Olympics, and therefore are refusing to have an international leg for the torch bearing. I mean, it's not as though people DON'T have things to protest about they way Canada does business...but is the gov't really admitting that? Or do they just think this sort of protest is some new fad that will happen regardless of the country the Olympics are hosted in?

A wild guess may be that they hope it will only happen against china.

Anyway. So, the political panel on TV is over. It was quite interesting even if it was mostly finger-pointing at the IOC and the NOC for not exerting more pressure on China earlier.

...

- The Bejing bureau chief also said that the Chinese government is cracking down so hard on Tibet and is reacting so strongly to any criticism (not just now but in general) because they're simply scared - scared that the Tibet situation could get out of control, Tibet could try to declare (or at least fight for) independence, and Western governments could actually support their independence. Which would give rise to all kinds of other independence movements away from China. Which is their nightmare, obviously.
That fear is also the reason for the forced destruction of Tibetan culture and religion - assimilate them so they don't rise up.
This might all be "Well, duh" to many of you but for me it was actually sort of new in that the conclusion from all this was that Western nations should actually reassure China that they would not support an independent Tibet - to assuage Chinese fears and get them to lay off destroying Tibet, basically. That's apparently also why the Dalai Lama doesn't support independence.
One of the politicians on the panel (the head of one of our states) has been friends with the Dalai Lama for many years and he said that he has been talking to the Chinese for years begging them to use the chance and start talks with the Tibetans while the Dalai Lama is still alive, i.e. while there is still a clear authority figure they can talk to who is against independence.
Just thought that was interesting.

I agree China has Cold War fears, it's even was stated by their foreign minister during a recent press conference. I think China fears not the Dalai Lama but the Tibetan government-in-exile. If you listen carefully to the CCTV's historical coverage of Tibet, they even said Dalai Lama was a friend to Mao but Dalai's cabinet convinced him for independence. China fears that Dalai Lama might die and the tibetan government-in-exile might revolt for independence once they certain power cermented once they are back in Tibet. It's also clear the young leaders with this TGIE refuses Chinese rule and want full independence. So I think if maybe the Dalai Lama states that it will be he and a few certain members joining to talk with China, it might turn out different in china's response. Currently, Dalai lama had said to urge china to have dialogue not only with him but his TGIE also.

Leocardia, yet again the BBC has broadcast a report specifically about a pro-China gathering:


Demonstrators gathered in Sydney's Chinatown to voice support for Beijing amid controversy over Tibet.


You can watch the video here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7340000/newsid_7345600/7345670.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1).

Are you still going to try and claim that they don't give coverage to the "pro-China" demonstrators?

The BBC video includes the following images:
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/7/tbdjn5.jpg

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/466/tbd2ij2.jpg

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/9229/tbd3dc7.jpg

In that video, the BBC also interviews a Chinese Australian who says that CNN and the BBC are lying.

Now, by contrast, how many times have seen seen Xinhua give coverage to people who say "Xinhua and the Chinese media are lying!"?

Protests = epic lulz. I support them.

However, something which does bother me is that they heavily focus on Tibet. Yes, let's ignore the oppression of Chinese in their own nation and PRC imperialism towards sovereign democracies, because... riots are happening in Tibet now, or something?

flame war away

And I think you should listen to neutral nations on these issues, like Australia.

ROFLMAO

But, I don't know, how can there be Olympic Games going on while in the same country people are shot and disappeared into prisons?

It's happened.

(Warning! Godwin!)

Protests = epic lulz. I support them.

However, something which does bother me is that they heavily focus on Tibet. Yes, let's ignore the oppression of Chinese in their own nation and PRC imperialism towards sovereign democracies, because... riots are happening in Tibet now, or something?


To be fair, some of the protesting was simply pro-democracy, rather than more widely pro-Tibet. Such as Reporters Without Borders' actions.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6264/tbdrk7.jpg

An article in The Times:


Chinese media provokes outrage over pro-Tibet Olympics protests

The headlines reflect China’s confusion over how to respond to the protests that have accompanied the Olympic flame on its route. One reads: “Warm reception in cold London.” Another says: “Chinese outraged over torch relay disruption.”

The Communist Party propaganda apparatus has faced a challenging week. Confronted with the PR disaster that has been the torch relay, it apparently decided to ensure that media reports at home reduced to a minimum the disruptions by protesters in London. The state-owned China Daily said the 25 people involved were detained. “They were no deterrent to thousands of Londoners, and a large number of Chinese working or studying here packed the streets and cheered the torch on its way around the city.” The demonstrators were reduced to a line in the story.

However, in Paris, Chinese media gave more substantial coverage to the attempts by what they described as a small number of people to challenge the safety, security and passage of the torch. Some of the media methods were even slightly reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution when propaganda organs were able to whip up the public into a frenzy of rage over an issue of their choice.

When it comes to nationalist pride, though, it takes little to arouse popular sentiment. And the attacks on the torch speak to that pride. Chinese officials, it would appear, decided to allow their people to see a large part of what was happening in the knowledge that they could count on popular support.

The internet response has been resounding. Millions have expressed their rage against protesters – particularly pro-Tibet groups – who threw themselves in the path of the torch’s “journey of harmony”.

For San Francisco, where the relay was, in effect, abandoned, the media splashed photos of delighted Chinese supporters waving huge red flags. Smaller corners were reserved for images of the pro-Tibet protesters being wrestled to the ground by police. Headlines followed the tone of “Relay finishes well despite route change”.

Despite Chinese criticism of French media reporting of the torch’s progress, the relay in Paris did throw up a new national heroine – the torchbearer “angel in a wheelchair”. Jin Jing, a 27-year-old amputee and Paralympic fencer, has rocketed to fame after fending off Tibet protesters in Paris. A torrent of internet messages has fêted her as a patriotic symbol of revulsion at the relay mayhem.

Her look of determination as she shielded the torch from protesters has spread through China, inflaming simmering public anger at the protests.

One of the tens of thousands of internet postings read: “I thought we had lost in France, but seeing the young disabled torch bearer Jin Jing’s radiant smile of conviction, I know in France we did not lose, we won!”


(link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article3732204.ece))

you need to know that China is still working on economic development in Tibet and that there are more positive things that just a genocidal rampage, as what our news medias describe it to be.

This economic development. Who exactly would it benefit during this genocidal rampage hmm? I can't imagine the dead benefiting from money.

And of course, there is the whole question of economic development for who? The emigrants perhaps? So many questions, so few truthful answers.

I'm waiting for someone to take the torch and run away with it. Pity it isn't coming to Connecticut. I'm excellent at evading pursuit. :)

I'm waiting for someone to take the torch and run away with it. Pity it isn't coming to Connecticut. I'm excellent at evading pursuit. :)

Rumor has it that the torch will be lined with rubber dissolving soap.

Rumor has it that the torch will be lined with rubber dissolving soap.

I'm glad I invested in one of these: http://www.tonyleroy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/gauntlet.jpg

:)

This economic development. Who exactly would it benefit during this genocidal rampage hmm? I can't imagine the dead benefiting from money.

And of course, there is the whole question of economic development for who? The emigrants perhaps? So many questions, so few truthful answers.

Indeed. I've read that the government is encouraging more and more Han to migrate to Tibet. Weakening the proportion of the indigenous population on their own land is a fairly effective means of control.


I'm glad I invested in one of these

That looks disturbingly as if it's trying to crawl away...

Anyway. Next stop: Islamabad.