Slashdot Log In
UN Officials Remove Poster Mentioning Chinese Firewall
Posted by
kdawson
on Sunday November 15, @06:04PM
from the can-you-spell-hypocricy dept.
from the can-you-spell-hypocricy dept.
At a UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum in Egypt, anti-censorship group Open Net Initiative was startled by a demand from UN officials to remove a poster mentioning Chinese Net censorship. When ONI refused the request, security personnel arrived and took away the poster. The group was promoting a new book, Access Controlled, a survey of Internet censorship, filtering, and online surveillance. A witness said, "The poster was thrown on the floor and we were told to remove it because of the reference to China and Tibet. We refused, and security guards came and removed it. The incident was witnessed by many." Here is a video of the removal.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
But hey... (Score:3, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:But hey... (Score:5, Insightful)
- You don't know what this has to do with UN policy, it could be a cautious guard that doesn't want anyone rocking the boat during the group. Seems decently reasonable.
- I saw no other posters at the convention. The poster could have been wildly inappropriate. If I went to a dinner about abortion methods for doctors where the topic was to discuss efficient safe methods. And I brought a big ass jesus loves your baby poster to the event it sure as hell would get taken down.
- Maybe the guard was an idiot... Who knocks a poster onto the floor? Taking it away makes sense, so fine do that. But the fact that the guy knocked it onto the floor hints that he was a bit of a nutter. Which would point to him not being the absolute representative of the UN.
- Do try to apply occam's razor.
Anyone else want to play devils advocate with me. The raw emotional responses on
Reply to This
Parent
Re:But hey... (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't say much though.
"the big ass Jesus poster would probably be left alone at an event like that."
I don't know... If the topic were the right and wrong of abortions and other groups had posters then that would be fine. I think the interesting thing is that it looked to be more of a meeting with refreshments and conversation afterward. Much like a play or concert. If someone showed up to the refreshment area with a poster I imagine they'd be asked to leave...
"He was UN security that was called in after a request to remove the poster. There was someone who thought it was a bad idea to criticize the Great Firewall."
Again this lines up with the not wanting to cause any problems at the event theory. At international events the kinds the UN hosts they need to be very politically correct. Certainly allow the debate to be lively within said bounds. I can imagine one side showing up with banners and shit to a debate would be frowned upon. And UN events with many countries need to be even more careful. This isn't an unreasonable goal. And it is not siding with the Chinese, it just keeping the event moving.
Anyways we didn't even get to hear the spat between the guard and the poster guy. We know little about the event. We didn't not listen to the other side. No matter what the case we cannot pass judgment with so little to go on.
Also I'm a
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Censorship depends on the country. (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you freaking kidding me? In France, you can't even wear a small catholic cross around your neck to a public school, unless it's well hidden under your shirt. And in both France and Germany, books like "Mein Kampf" and so-called nazi paraphernalia are banned (not that this does any good mind you, it only makes the extreme right feel more victimized and it drove that kind of market for that stuff underground).
And in France at least, there is an unspoken understanding between the press and the government. You don't say anything to embarrass government officials, and you get to keep your job. In France, the government has so much influence over every area of life, it make life very difficult if any of its citizen gets out of line. By the way, I know this because I'm French, I was born in France, and I've lived part of my life in France.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Censorship depends on the country. (Score:4, Informative)
Right, whereas the "Free Press" in the USA is reknowned for its pioneering investigative work into Government. Oh no, wait, they're pretty much lackeys to the White House Press Office (and have been since Reagan). You can slander the non-US Press if you like, but at least they told the truth about the rush to war in Iraq.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Censorship depends on the country. (Score:4, Funny)
It is a good thing, really. First, a religious symbol isn't speech. Second, religion is a private thing of anyone. No reason to demonstratively exibit it to everyone. And third, a truly secular country doesn't endorce a particular religion. France seems to be a truly secular country to me.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Censorship depends on the country. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm actually quite impressed with the French approach to religion in public. Either everybody can show their religion freely, or nobody can. Compare and contrast with the UK, where there have been instances of nurses being told to remove any and all religious symbology... oh, unless you're muslim, in which case headscarves are fine. Oh, and jews are cool with the skullcap. Whilst we're at it, sikhs can all wear turbans. In fact, just take off any christian symbols.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Censorship depends on the country. (Score:4, Insightful)
What does anything you said have to do with censorship?
All governments and private organizations practice censorship to some extent.
The debate isn't "is censorship bad," but isntead the debate is "how much is too much".
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Censorship depends on the country. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, the list of societies that have been irreparably damaged by westerners who thought they knew better trying to 'civilise the barbarians' is long.
Yeah. Thank god Westerners didn't go into South Africa, Rhodesia, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, India, North America, Mexico, or Honk Kong. Those places are much better off right now, not having had our terrible influence.
Reply to This
Parent
U.N. and Human Rights... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone who thinks the U.N. exists in any way to help with human rights is insane. All you have to do is look at the list of nations on the U.S. Human Rights panel...
The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible (just like any large organization, government or otherwise). Helping people is at best a secondary motive and sometimes not even not even a motive at all.
Reply to This
Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure. The "true" Chinese government is based in Tapei, and they don't have a UN presence.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever the standpoint, at the end of the day, I'd rather be a US citizen than a Chinese citizen. Real freedoms, as opposed to whatever bullshit subjective measurement Chinese apologists like to invoke, is what counts. The US isn't perfect, but it sure is a helluva lot freer a society than China. Picture the political cartoons of even the most powerful political leaders, and then look at how everybody has to talk under their breath if they want to question the Chinese leadership.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
And our complete apathy towards the largest international diplomatic body are helping... how?
I mean, at least for citizens of the United States to complain about the UN is almost hilarious. Our previous ambassador wanted nothing more than to tear the whole thing down. Half the nation thinks diplomacy is for little girls and real men point missiles at each other until a vein pops or someone blinks.
If we want to improve it, we need to contribute to the process. If we refuse to contribute, and then someone in the UN does something stupid, or goes against US foreign policy, we have no room to complain.
Your discourse helps no one and all it does is promote a helpless fatalism in international politics.
P.S.: Get over yourself and your conspiracy theories. "Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity" should be "never attribute to a massive conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by one middle-manager overreacting." I'm guessing one middle-management-esque official in the UN saw the poster, took unnecessary authority of the situation and demanded that it be taken down. When he didn't get his way he called guards whose job is to listen to higher ups, who did as their job asks without questioning their "boss". And the result was a petty diplomatic incident wherein someone overreached and may even get punished for acting hastily and calling yet more attention to Chinese censorship.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (Score:4, Interesting)
From the UN Charter (the treaty that established it in the 1940s) as a successor to the League of Nations:
This is from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Two phrases: 1- "Peace and Security" and 2- "the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." define and determine why it is so slow to act and is usually ineffective when it comes to "sovereignty" issues. It's technical arms (which usually don't threaten any sovereignty) tend to be quite good.
Reply to This
Parent
I've seen this firsthand. (Score:5, Informative)
A few years ago, as a student, I got to go visit the UN's Geneva campus, sponsored by one of the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that has a presence at the UN. While I was there, I got to go sit in on one of the meetings regarding the formation of the Human Rights Commission. (Committee? Council? I can't remember.) During the meeting, representatives from one of the other NGOs in attendance started to hand out flyers encouraging action in Darfur.
The representative from Sudan was not pleased with this, to say the least, and demanded they cease distributing the flyers. The NGO in question was informed that they were not to do that, and that they'd be removed if they continued to do so.
The UN is a farce when it comes to doing anything useful about human rights.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.N. exists to exert and expand U.N. control, wherever possible
It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, the way certain Slashdotters seem to think, if "think" is indeed the right term.
First UN: they don't exist to promote democracy, freedom or any other such ideologically charged ideals - UN is there to promote communication between governments, primarily; everything else secondary to that. When things like emergency aid occur, they are happy consequences of the cooperation that springs from the effort to communicate in an orderly manner. It is also a voluntary organisation - nations choose to participate, they are not forced to do so, and UN doesn't make laws or enforce anything, which is one of the reasons, I suspect, why we so often see that countries make promises and later ignore them.
It is of course nonsense to say that UN "exists to exert power"; that is just one of those sweeping statements that show that you don't know and don't want to know what you are talking about - you just want to spit your gall out on anything or anybody who isn't there to defend themselves. If you want to do something constructive, go and find out where that comes from instead of inventing scapegoats.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:U.N. and Human Rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's hope it stays that way.
Reply to This
Parent
Expaning UN control (Score:5, Insightful)
There are three ways to expand one's power:
1. Convince people to give you power.
2. Trade for it, which requires having something to trade.
3. Use violence or the threat thereof to get people to do what you want.
The UN doesn't have anything useful for #2, and "you and what army" for #3. #1 is the only option left to them, and sovereign nations are not very easy to convince to give up their power (except, maybe, for post-National Europe).
Reply to This
Parent
Yes, thankfully (Score:4, Interesting)
If it exists to exert and expand UN control, it's doing an utterly terrible job of it.
We are all lucky that the natural state of bureaucrats is one of ineptness.
But the U.N. is doing a lot more behind the scenes than you realize, the recent inter-nation secret copyright treaty is one facet of that... people here care a lot about copyright issues which is why you know about it, but how many OTHER similar secret multi-national treaties are being drafted that you and I know nothing about?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Yes, thankfully (Score:5, Interesting)
As I understand, ACTA is being negotiated directly between representatives of the various countries. The UN, as an entity, is not involved, although obviously the states involved in ACTA are all member states of the UN as well.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:But you have to admire (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, do you realize that CNN and MSNBC, and yes, even NPR, are no better?
I would disagree with that, though 'better' does not mean good. They're better in the sense that breaking your arm is better than breaking your spine.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:But you have to admire (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone knows that FOX news and Rush Limbaugh are to be compared with the National inquirer when it comes to news.
That's roughly accurate, although saying "everybody knows" is silly. Now, do you realize that CNN and MSNBC, and yes, even NPR, are no better? Or do you think they're magically better because they correspond more closely to your beliefs?
Well, at least CNN and MSNBC don't just flat-out lie about the facts, report their own talking-heads points of view as news, or copy any political party's press releases as their own news reports the way Fox News does. From the looks of it, quite frankly, you'd think that Olbermann's and Maddow's teams do better fact checking than the Fox News newsroom does. Either that or Fox News newsroom simply ignore the results of their fact checking when it doesn't support the story they want to run, which quite often seems to be the case when they report on politics. Incompetents or liars, that's Fox News, take your pick.
Reply to This
Parent
Can I spell hypocrisy? (Score:4, Funny)
Reply to This
Places not to hold an Internet Governance Forum (Score:5, Informative)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Internet_blackholes_en.png [wikimedia.org]
Reply to This
The UN is not working for us (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN prefers the interests of member governments over western ideals? I'm shocked! Shocked!
Seriously, imagine the Republican Party leadership, and/or the Democratic Party leadership, if they never had to stand for elections. How much would they care about our interests? Now, remember that most of the UN doesn't belong to our culture either. Why would a bunch of government employees, mostly from dictatorships of one kind or another, be opposed to censorship?
Reply to This
Hypocrisy (Score:4, Funny)
from the can-you-spell-hypocricy dept
Well, someone here obviously cannot...
Posted by kdawson on 23:04 15th November, 2009
That explains it, I guess.
Reply to This
Best votes money can buy... (Score:4, Insightful)
One need only look at the "aid" money China lavishes on Africa in exchange for sweetheart deals to buy their natural resources to know why this happened.
Is anyone really surprised?
Reply to This
The applause is sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
The video itself was very mild in content. A bunch of people standing around looking at a poster that had been knocked down. But the awful moment came when the guard removed the poster and you can hear people actually clapping. It so reminded me of that quote "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."
Reply to This
Re:The applause is sickening (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently I did. How could you tell? Or are you ascribing your own feelings to the situation?
Reply to This
Parent
It's good to be owed money! (Score:5, Insightful)
"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event just because someone is trying to impress or be in the good graces of the Chinese government.
That's what happens when you owe a lot of money to someone or want some of their money.
Up next: China takes back Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.
Now just remember that when you go to put all those Christmas gifts (Made in China) on your credit card (in a very circuitous route:Financed by China).
Yep! Now who's the Super Power, again?
Reply to This
Re:It's good to be owed money! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep! Now who's the Super Power, again?
The US government prints pieces of paper which Americans send to China. The Chinese make actual useful stuff and send it to America in return. Americans end up with a pile of useful stuff, Chinese end up with a pile of pieces of paper.
Who's getting the worst of the deal here?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:It's good to be owed money! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's not at all how international trade works. It's more akin to:
1. An American company wishes to buy shitty goods manufactured in China.
2. The American company buys renminbi using American dollars.
3. The American company spends the renminbi to buy the shitty Chinese goods.
4. The Chinese send to America the shitty goods that come broken, or end up breaking soon after.
5. The Chinese have both the dollars and the renminbi, and all the Americans got was some shitty, poorly-manufactured plastic toys.
6. The Chinese use those American dollars, as they still have perceived value in some areas of the world, to buy land, factories, natural resources and other property in Africa.
7. The Americans still just have shitty plastic toys and the Africans have near-worthless currency, but the Chinese have African land, factories, gold, oil, coal, and even people under their control now.
The Americans lost. The Africans lost. The Chinese won.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:It's good to be owed money! (Score:4, Interesting)
Up next: China takes back Taiwan and the US Government does nothing.
I think it's unlikely the US would do nothing - but in any case, China would have a very hard time taking back Taiwan by force, unless they decided to repeatedly throw nukes at them until all the Taiwanese were dead. The only way China has to reach them is by ship, and Taiwan does have a significant military that possesses pretty much the same weaponry the US military has.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:It's good to be owed money! (Score:4, Interesting)
Even the current President would go to the aid of Taiwan. It is a long-term strategic partner of the US.
As to Afghanistan, well, maybe for once there might be an intelligent decision. The Afghanis sent every super power over the last few centuries packing, and a bunch of Republican morons who probably haven't opened up a history book in their lives are going "Obama is indecisive" would have NATO emulate the Soviets, and we all know how that went.
Under the long-standing NATO strategy, the Taliban basically went from hiding in mountains from American bombs to wanton suicide bomb attacks in Kabul. What's more, NATO has basically had to stay in bed with a crook who stole an election. That might not be so bad, but said crook can barely control an area of about 50 square miles around Kabul, and is pretty much persona non grata throughout the rest of the region.
But I guess to historically-illiterate morons like yourself, it can all be solved by just sending in more troops, because that worked for the Brits and the Russians oh so very well.
Reply to This
Parent
It has become apparent (Score:5, Insightful)
That the UN itself has become an arm of the chinese government, in censoring anti-censorship advocates.
Reply to This
was witnessed by many (Score:5, Interesting)
Prove it.
No, i wasn't kidding. One of the dangers of having governmental entities in control of information, and most of it being recorded only digitally: "facts" are a variable commodity.
Reply to This
Which UN policy did the poster contravene? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, it was very odd the way everyone stood around the poster on the floor, not touching it or picking it up, as though it were a diseased, dead body which no one was willing to touch. So they called the police to come an take it away.
Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?
Reply to This
Re:Which UN policy did the poster contravene? (Score:4, Interesting)
They might not have diplomatic immunity. 24 h in a local jail until their embassy finds them and clears up the little misunderstanding?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Which UN policy did the poster contravene? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?"
Because they didn't want to be beaten and 'indefinitely detained' for 'interfering in the lawful duties of the authorities'.
Reply to This
Parent
Wake up - China is NOT your friend (Score:5, Insightful)
When will the rest of the world wake up and realize that China is NOT your friend?
Reply to This
Another theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it at all possible that rather than it being "anti-censorship", it was simply that they didn't want someone trying to hawk merchandise? Is it possible that the witness jumped to a conclusion and filled in the details for what he thought was a reason?
I noticed in the video that the room didn't have any other posters advertising anything.
Reply to This
Undemocratic? (Score:5, Informative)
"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event... "
The UN is a democratic organization and this act of censorship is completely democratic. It's wrong, but democratic.
That should be a lesson to those that confuse freedom and democracy.
Reply to This
mall cops (Score:5, Insightful)
malls cops won't let you set up a stand in a mall... unless you pay rent and sign an agreement.
Maybe these guys didn't do that.
Reply to This
Someone please explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves? Their idea of human rights is atrocious and a billion+ people are living under oppression, with limited to no freedom of speech and no freedom of worship. They look the other way where child labor is concerned, and they have most favored trading partner status with several countries (meaning they pay little to no tariffs while not gtranting those trading partners the same privilege). Why we're in a race with China to the bottom is beyond me.
Okay, well, I do understand that is a few politicians in the industrialized nations with clout who envy the power the elite in China have and desire the middle class to be expunged from existence so that everyone is dependent upon big brother, but how do the politicians in those nations justify their actions when questioned? They certainly won't admit the truth, I'm sure.
Reply to This
Re:Someone please explain (Score:4, Interesting)
limited to no freedom of speech:
My impression is that the Chinese can pretty well say what they want, as long as it does not threaten the one-party rule.
As far as child labor is concerned, I was not so sure, so I googled a bit. It appears that the national government is down on child labor (under 16), but local governments often turn a blind eye.
Here is my reference:
http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889 [china-labour.org.hk]
As various sources within the Chinese media have pointed out, documenting occupational health and safety problems among child labourers is inherently difficult because Chinese labour law bans child labour. One newly passed regulation makes the hiring of a minor punishable by a fine of 5000 Yuan per worker (cumulative per month of employ) and suspension of the employer's operating license. Other laws criminalize the placing of underage workers in potentially hazardous situations and forced bonding of a child for the purpose of labour (3). The problem lies not so much with regulation but lack of enforcement. Indeed, despite stiffer penalties, the problem of child labour has only become more serious in recent years. A growing economy coupled with a growing economic disparity provides a fertile ground for exploitation of societies most vulnerable members. Local governments, in a headlong rush to woo manufacturers into their districts are often reticent to enforce regulations against child labour, which might act as an impediment to local economic growth.
The problem of juvenile labour in China is far too multifaceted to be summarized in black and white terms. To address these complexities, we suggest that further and deeper studies into the root causes of the problem be carried out. We see these root causes as being a growing economic disparity in China, a rapidly changing social structure, and a failure of the Chinese educational system to provide adequate and affordable education to all children. Until these issues are addressed, it is our belief that the problem of child labour in China will continue to grow, and as it does incidents involving the injury and death of juvenile workers will continue. (4)
freedom of religion: I googled that. Here is an interesting article: http://www.religiousfreedom.com/wrpt/Chinarpt.htm [religiousfreedom.com]
Not a good situation, but I think the statement no freedom of worship goes too far. But the Chinese government has rules, and we do too (for instance, tax exempt status requirements), The difference is that the IRS does not kill you. Perhaps from the wikipedia article, I note that the official complaint about the Roman Catholic church is not different than one that was popular in the US. Then, again, you may be too young to remember the JFK election campaign. Still, it would seem that the real issue is the role of the Roman Catholic church in the events leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union.
middle class: I guess the Chinese now have more millionaires than the US. I suspect the middle class is developing nicely too.
I am not sure how to classify the Chinese economy, but I suspect a lot of the problems come from the process of accumulation. Communist, socialist, or capitialist accumulation has not been pretty. It does not have to be that way, IMO, but the emperically the historical record is pretty clear.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Oh the UN is such a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not feasible. Too much of our food (and opium) comes from the the third world, too many critical minerals come from there, and too much of our sales of arms, pharmaceuticals, entertainment, and other processed goods goes to third world purchasers. And make no mistake, "second world" nations make little pretense of being democratic.
Are you willing to pay twice the current rates for computers because gold and mercury prices used for their manufacture are quadrupled? Even if you're willing, do you think many slashdotters would still be employed in that economy?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Oh the UN is such a joke (Score:4, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Values (Score:4, Informative)
Not exactly. The League of Nations disbanded itself in 1946 [wikipedia.org], giving its assets to the UN. The UN itself was first thought out in 1943 in the Tehran conference [slashdot.org]. It was during WWII, so only the allies were in attendance.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Values (Score:5, Informative)
I smell bullshit. Let's take a closer look at that document [religlaw.org] shall we?
-> sharia takes precedence over human rights, and the declaration cannot be understood except as a summary of sharia
Wrong. It actually states that such rights are integral to Islam and the document is in accordance with Shaira, not that Shaira takes precedence or that it is a mere summary.
-> women can not choose whether to marry, nor to whom
Wrong. Nowhere does it state this, though it does state "Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right."
-> women are not equal to men, and have "duties" to perform
Possibly. Article 6(a): "Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage." You are wrong on equality not being mentioned, but right on the duties, but to be fair men are tasked with duties too.
-> discrimination on the basis of religion is, in fact allowed
Wrong. From Article 1(a): "All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations."
-> any action that might in any way convince a muslim to become either atheist or other faith, is punishable by death (yes, might, you read that correctly)
Possibly. Article 10: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism." It mentions a prohibition, not a death sentence.
-> muslims have the duty (not the right, the duty) to use any amount of violence if there are any non-muslim members of government
Wrong. I'm not sure where you get this from. The closest is Article 23(b): "Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah." Was this what you meant? Where is the duty to violence?
-> any expression of speech that leads to "weakening of faith" is punishable by death, as is anything that could (not would, could) undermine governmental authority
Wrong. From the quote I assume you mean Article 22(c): "Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith. " Nothing there about death or governmental authority.
So I think I'll call this myth busted. Try reading something before spouting off hyperbole about it.
Reply to This
Parent