Goodwill to all men – Chinese style
His name is Liu Xiaobo.
He asked for a constitution that would protect the rights of Chinese citizens.
He held the view that governmental accountability and rule of law are fundamental requirements of a civilised society.
He wanted a better deal for the Chinese people.
He expressed these views in a document.
For that crime, on this day, he’s been jailed for 11 years.
Update
This is what James Fallows had to say on the matter (emphasis mine):
There is nothing about his life, work, or efforts that a truly confident government should fear. That the Chinese government cannot tolerate his views speaks volumes.
There is much to admire in modern China, and even more to sympathize with in the aspirations and efforts of its people. But this is a reminder of what is wrong with the way it is run, and is a moment that friends of China and of Chinese people should note, regret, and deplore.
Amen to that.
Update 2
An article by Custer at ChinaGeeks has summarised things very well. It is both sad and typical that so many of the comments on this piece seek to distract from the debate by pointing fingers anywhere but Zhongnanhai. Hat tip to Jeremiah for pointing the way.
December 25th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
He has a constitution that protects the rights of Chinese citizen. There is just no one to uphold, defend and enforce that constitution. That is, the constitution is powerless, useless, and in name only. It is just like the country it defines.
December 25th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Sadly, Bill, the country – as represented by the CCP – is altogether too powerful. The constitution on the other hand …
December 28th, 2009 at 6:02 am
And this is goodwill American style
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
December 28th, 2009 at 10:45 am
MAC -
You’ve been here for five minutes and already you’re resorting to logical fallacy.
Or have you walked these halls in a past cyber life?
December 29th, 2009 at 1:28 am
@stuart
“MAC -
You’ve been here for five minutes and already you’re resorting to logical fallacy.
Or have you walked these halls in a past cyber life?”
Are you denying the American breach of human rights or are you blind to it?
December 29th, 2009 at 11:31 am
“Are you denying the American breach of human rights or are you blind to it?”
I rest my case.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I’m surprised you haven’t yet blogged about the case of Akmal Shaikh, another sad story of Chinese injustice.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:44 am
@ Matthew
I’ve been following the story and one can but hope that the Chinese didn’t just choose to make an example of the foreigner. I don’t support capital punishment, but that’s the law in China and I’m certain a Chinese citizen would have received the same sentence (unless it was Hu Jintao’s offspring, of course).
December 30th, 2009 at 1:18 am
Well, from what I read, Chinese law provides for reduced sentences for mentally ill people, and in a related case an American was spared the death penalty because of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/28/akmal-shaikh-china-execution-background
December 30th, 2009 at 10:35 am
@ Matthew
I wasn’t aware of that. Perhaps it was China demonstrating that “we’ll do what we damn please within our own borders”.
Either that, or in the American’s case they got something under the table.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:53 am
stuart,
why not include Liu’s most famous words in the list to demonstrate his love to his fellow Chinese? “the only hope of China is 200 years of colonization (of/by the west)”
if you argued his view points are not important, what matters here is the freedom of expression, then why bothered to list his other views?
my questions:
do you know his arguments apart from what are reported by BBC/CNN? do you even care?
December 31st, 2009 at 10:17 am
@ Linan Wang
Welcome back.
“…do you know his arguments apart from what are reported by BBC/CNN? do you even care?”
His arguments (misrepresented by you) are of secondary importance to his right to express them.
That is the point.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
[...] Jingsheng is clearly a man who can empathise with the plight of Liu Xiaobo, comprehends the nature of what happened in Copenhagen, and understands the global nightmare of a [...]
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:36 am
@stuart
“His arguments (misrepresented by you) are of secondary importance to his right to express them.”..
You seems to have blind support for right of expression. Please remember right of expression and democracy also helped elected Hitler and contributed a great deal in the Rwandan genocide(via right of expression by some of the contry’s journalists and leaders). Government who earns its right to govern has the right to govern hopefully using best efforts. No government worth its right to govern will govern subject to opinions by outsiders(which could be considered of course). Same for your government.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:37 am
“Please remember right of expression and democracy also helped elected Hitler and contributed a great deal in the Rwandan genocide”
You’ve turned me right around with that compelling argument.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Wolf Biermann, a songwriter in East Germany, wrote a line which went “in our three-partitioned country” during the 1970s – a line which suggested that what became Polish territory after WW2 was still German. Biermann was by no means up to reclaiming those territories. He only used the line to smack the ruling East German SED. Neither the Polish government, nor even East Germany’s politbureau took issue. They understood the meaning, and they weren’t that paranoid.
Biermann, half-jewish, survived the Holocaust, together with his mother, while his father was killed in a concentration camp. You see, a man can be well aware of the possibly incindiary potential of language, and still use words to smack those who abuse their powers.
I’d say you have gone pretty low with comment #14, MAC.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
“I’d say you have gone pretty low with comment #14, MAC.”
What is so low about condemning the election of Hitler and Rwandan genocide?
January 18th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
@stuart
For a change, why don’t you blog something about Aussies’ treatment of the Indians just because they are Indians?
January 18th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Because that topic doesn’t enter the sphere within which this blog operates.
I could, however, post about the attitude of Chinese towards India and Indians without the need to apply my ‘topic filter’.