China: Citizen reporter to be deported
Written byJohn Kennedy
The day after live-vlogging the rare phenomenon that is a loud Free Tibet protest in the middle of Tiananmen Square, Noel ‘noneck’ Hidalgo has just tweeted that he is to be deported. Guess he wasn't using Tor.
Written byJohn Kennedy
40 comments
Tan Lye Huat, I’d like to suggest you learn better English skills so that you can champion your propaganda a little more effectively, rather than coming across like a government parrot. Your choice of words are loaded and poorly chosen (ie: barbaric), arguably, the Chinese government needs to chill out and let freedom run its course rather than trying to rule over basic free speech. Peace out and two thumbs up for liberty and freedom of speech. Perhaps over time, China will get with the times and learn to relax. Cheers to Noel on the vlog! I’ll pass that along. ;-)
To Mr John Keeley, I am sad that you have reverted to agitation and dogmatism. So blinded were you that you had refused to believe that one desperado had tried to snatch the torch from a lady in wheelchair. You have continued to show so much hatred, anger and revenge instead of learning to be rational. There is no point exchanging views with you. May age eventually mellow you and make you see harmony and love instead of hatred and revenge. Good bye.
“You are right that Tibetans in exile are not singular in their views, but the overall majority have faith in the Dalai Lama as a religious and political leader. While some may not agree with him politically, they have not lost faith in him. ” ?
Da Lai is just a Name , the person selected to be “Da Lai” should possess good and true spiritual quality. Unfortunately, I can’t see that in present. Do Buddha (buddhism)teach us to be political leader ?? I completely lost my faith in a person, I have Faith in the Truth.
Tan Lye Huat, I have not “reverted to agitation and dogmatism” and I 100% acknowledged that a protesters tried to grab the torch from a lady using a wheelchair. My point was that she herself was not “attacked” any more than any of the other torch bearers, but the patronising and desperate CCP media made a bigger deal out of the issue than it really was – and patronised the torch bearer in the process. I see you take the same patronising tone to her, to me, and to “China’s minorities” as the CCP does. My argument is 100% rational, calm, without “anger and revenge”. I am having an interesting conversation with you, and I would like to continue this conversation so we can both understand each other better, even if we continue to disagree. I think Confusius would think this a good thing, don’t you? He would disagree that there is not point in discussing further, I’m sure. But you are not an enlightened being, it seems. You come here and speak a lot of Party propaganda, but when you are challened to an in-depth discussion, when your claims are analysed and pulled apart, you haven’t got a leg to stand on. You accuse others of anger, revenge and so on, and you run away like a child. You must stop your patronising tone. It is desperate. I am 68. If I’m waiting for age to mellow me, then I’d better live to 100.
Talk to you soon, child of the CCP.
during the 90’s i spent well over a year spread across 5 visits, living with tibetans exiled in india..
every time i visited there were ‘new arrivals’ who spoke of utterly shameful abuses heaped onto them at home.. these abuses went well beyond beatings and intimidation.
Tan Lye Huat – who are you working for?
there is no shame in being proud of your country – i am proud to be english.. however awful the countries past has been and however i might disagree with our current foreign policy.
the difference is that to be proud of my country also means to challenge my governments methods and bring about descent in order to express my opinions.
being proud of your country, to my mind, is all about expressing your personal opinion.. educating yourself on it’s history and making a judgement therein..
you are clearly proud of your country as well, although there is a big detractor.. will you not acknowledge the ethnic cleansing which tietans have had to endure?
after all – when someone ‘brutally’ starts a fight in your home and refuses to leave when asked, it is difficult to have any respect for them, or relate to what they find to be proud off in life.
Mr John Keeley, Let me give you a gist of what Confucius had said:’At 15, I have devoted myself to learning; at 30, I have established myself; at 40, I have understood many things and am no longer confused; at 50, I have known my mission; at 60, I have been able to distinguish between right and wrong in other people’s words; at 70, I have been able to act freely without breaking any rules.’
I regret that at the age of 68, you have been devoting your time to criticizing China, knowing very well that you will achieve nothing out of it. Why not use your time to do something concrete for your poor people at home? Why not help the poverty-stricken blacks? Why not help the poor in Africa, Philippines, etc?
If you stand for democracy and freedom, then you should allow me to air my views. You should know that democracy had produced Hitler. You should know that the largest democracy in the world, India, has been ruled by Nehru, his daughter (Indira Gandhi), his grandson (Rajit Gandhi) and now his grand daughter-in-law, pulling the strings behind PM Singh. Mao’s children never succeeded him; Deng’s children never succeeded him; Jiang’s children never succeeded him, and Hu’s children have not been lined up to succeed him. So, you see, no system is perfect. Both democracy and communism have their flaws and idealism.
Communism came from Karl Marx (a Jew) and he derived his ideas from Jesus (also a Jew), who clearly propounded that ‘in the eyes of God, all men are equal.’ Marx’s ideal was an economic utopia where this could be achieved: ‘From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.’ At this stage, all men will be really free. But this is an idealism and it is hard to achieve it.
Democracy came from another Jew, Benedict Spinoza (1632 – 1677), who influenced John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence first drafted by Jefferson echoes Spinoza. I am a fan of Spinoza and also of his devoted follower, the great genius, Albert Einstein (also a Jew). I believe that if the works of Confucius had been translated and then read by Spinoza, Spinoza would have been able to come out with even more concrete ways to rule a state.
In democracy, you do not impose your views on others and deprive others of their freedom. Why do you insist that the American or British system is superior to the Chinese system and that if China does not go the way of the West, then it must be condemned? When billions of people throughout the world longed to see the first Olympic Torch Run, why did a minority disgruntled so-called rights activists try to impose their view and prevent the majority from enjoying and sharing the fun?
It is indeed good that Confucius is once again influencing the Chinese people. The starting point of Confucius is that ‘Within the four seas, all men are brothers.’ With the guiding hand of Confucius, you have peace and love. But the starting point of so-called rights activists is discrimination: ‘You are bad, I am good. I am right, you are wrong.’ And with discrimination come hatred, revenge, violence and bloodshed.
Although I am not a mainland Chinese but of Chinese descent, I applaud what China is now trying to do. China is changing very fast, and its leaders are trying to find the best way to govern the country, having shelved many communist flaws. Confucius is clearly the answer and the stress on harmony should be praised by people of all creeds and beliefs. With harmony, there will be no war. One thing is sure: China will NEVER insist that other countries adopt its system.
To ‘loving JK’ bowen, I am sorry to say that your starting points were all wrong. Firstly, I am not from mainland China but of Chinese descent. Secondly, why did you talk to the minority Tibetans in India, who had fled Tibet because they were disgruntled, instead of visiting and talking to the majority Tibetans in Tibet?
Tan Lye Huat, actually, I work for a charity that helps disadvantaged people in the UK. They are free to speak about their situation of being disadvantaged without being arrested. Actually, I have spent time writing letters for Amnesty International campaigns calling for the release of Chinese citizens imprisoned for voicing their opinions that happen to differ from the Party line. ACTUALLY, it seems you jump to conclusions. Earlier you expressed that you hoped I would “mellow” with age when you had no idea how old I am (I am not 68. That was a test to see your reaction). On the other hand, if I had said I was 18, you would have patronised me some more. Because you don’t have real arguments to back up your claims. You avoid the issues being discussed and scurry around looking for distractions. You make assumptions. That I “devote my time to criticising Chinese”. Are you not forgetting that the Party has taught you that Tibetans are Chinese? I didn’t criticise them, did I. But of course, we know the truth. You know the truth. You want Tibetans to be Chinese just as long as it suits you, to justify the occupation of Tibet. But ultimately, you know they’re not Chinese. Because you jump to conclusions, you think I am anti-Chinese. And because you don’t listen (or read with concentration), you think I am anti-Chinese. Actually, I have written work that has been published about the plight of Chinese immigrants in America in the late 19th and early 20th century. To do this I interviewed Chinese-Americans. This is because I do not hate Chinese.
Tan Lye Huat, I have not tried to stop you airing your views. I have just challenged your views. Can you not see the difference? There seems to be a parallel here again between you and the Party’s over-sensitive reactions. When a Chinese citizen airs his or her views, if they happen to differ from the Party’s views, the Party cannot stand to be challenged. The citizen is silenced – often brutally. When a Westerner criticises China, the Party says “you have hurt our feelings”. How many times have I read in Chinese media (yes, I read Chinese news every day) that “the feelings of the Chinese have been hurt by Western criticism”. This detracts from the real argument of right or wrong. You cannot stand to be challenged and you make claims that I am trying to silence you, that I am angry and agitated, just because I challenge your views. Like I told you already: if you criticise my government or my people for our actions, I am happy to listen to you. I will not silence you. I will welcome your comments and I will listen. I might even agree with you. I will not hide behind “hurt feelings”, and if I was the government, I would not silence you.
You speak in polarities: democracy versus communism. What about capitalism versus communism? China is becoming increasingly capitalist, and yet still communist. Is it not possible for it to be more democratic, too? What would Confucius say about your one-dimensional approach and your rigidity? You speak of Indian politics and Nehru’s relatives “pulling strings”. Well, what about the Gang of Four? Was Mao’s wife not pulling any strings when he was on his deathbed? Are Hu Jintao’s offspring not attending good schools and colleges that are denied millions of Chinese? In your form of communism, are some not “more equal than others”? I didn’t say any system was perfect. We agree then, that “both democracy and communism have their flaws and idealism” and no single system is perfect.
You asked me: “Why do you insist that the American or British system is superior to the Chinese system and that if China does not go the way of the West, then it must be condemned?” Can you please remind me where in the text above I actually said that? Again, you are jumping to conclusions about what I think. You are telling lies just to sustain your argument, because you don’t have meaningful answers when your argument is challenged. Actually, I don’t think that the American or the British system is “superior”. Please go back to some examples I gave earlier: culture and freedom of expression. Let’s remove this from the context of Confucius, Jesus, Einstein, Mao, Nehru, Spinoza, Jefferson, Hitler, communism, idealism, dogmatism, cups of chocolate, aging and every other tangent you throw into the debate. You began this trail of discussion by declaring the need to respect culture and not act like “barbarians”. So, when Tibetans express themselves – their culture – and are cracked down upon by a barbaric system; when people are locked up in prison for ten years or more for voicing their opinions or wanting to maintain their culture in their own way (not in the way that has been dictated to them by the Party), and they are tortured – IS THIS RIGHT OR WRONG??? This is the essence of my argument, and has been since I typed the first message above. If you truly believe that this is barbaric and wrong, then you speak out. That is what the protesters have been doing in Beijing. If it hurts your feelings, too bad. Tibetans have been treated like dogs for half a century. What about their feelings? You think it’s okay for a group of men to torture teenage girls with electric cattle prods – even their genitalia? Is this wrong, Tan Lye Huat? Because this is what happens in the PRC.
Back to the Olympic torch, which you keep referring to. You’re missing the point that we in the West saw no enjoyment and fun in parading the Olympic torch through our streets, billed by the Party as “journey of harmony, journey of love” (SICK!) when it was then to be taken through Tibet where people are oppressed? Why did the Party keep Uighurs and Tibetans locked up in their homes when the torch passed through their areas? Why were they not allowed to experience enjoyment and fun? You think we are anti-China, when actually we’re anti-hypocrisy.
If you think that human rights activists “discriminate” and the Party doesn’t, then you are very deluded. I discriminate between right and wrong, yes. China discriminates against Tibetans and their human rights.
Confucius, Confucius, Confucius. There is no end to your dogma. And yet you told me you are not religious and therefore you are never dogmatic.
Your closing remarks: “China will never insist that other countries adopt its system”. I would like to believe you, but I only need to look at Tibet, East Turkistan and Inner Mongolia to see that is not true. And since about a fifth of the world’s population live in the PRC, why does “China” – the CCP rulers – insist that 1.3 billion people have to live according to the CCP’s system? They have no choice. One fifth of the world’s population have no choice.
Lucky for you that you don’t live in China and that your views – which you are so good at expressing with great determination – don’t happen to oppose the Party’s views. Imagine what it would be like if you lived in China and that these strong views of yours and your determination to express them just happened to differ from the Party’s? Hopefully Amnesty International or some other “disgruntled so-called rights activists” might speak out for you. Just think how it could be – how it is for so many in China. Maybe I should follow your advice. You really think I should I forget them?
PS: JK Bowen couldn’t talk freely to Tibetans in Tibet – who live in fear – but once they escape to India they can talk without fear. Isn’t that obvious?