China calls out US human rights abuses

[Alatar]

Here's an interesting "Take the log out of your own eye" approach!

China calls out US human rights abuses: laptop searches, 'Net porn
By Nate Anderson | Last updated about 17 hours ago

Upset over the US State Department's annual human rights report, China publishes a report of its own on various US ills. This year, it calls attention to America's border laptop searches, its attitude toward WikiLeaks, and the prevalence of online pornography.

In case the report's purpose wasn't clear, China Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said this weekend, "We advise the US side to reflect on its own human rights issue, stop acting as a preacher of human rights as well as interfering in other countries' internal affairs by various means including issuing human rights reports."

The report makes no real attempt to provide context to a huge selection of news articles about bad things happening in the US, piled up one against each other in almost random fashion. It reads like the product of an undergrad's caffeinated night of Googling (or Baidu-ing, as the case may be).

As the UK's Guardian paper noted, "While some of the data cited in the report is derived from official or authoritative sources, other sections are composed from a mishmash of online material. One figure on crime rates is attributed to '10 Facts About Crime in the United States that Will Blow Your Mind, Beforitsnews.com'." The opening emphasis on US crime is especially odd; crime rates in the US are the lowest they have been in decades; the drop-off has been so dramatic that books have been written in attempts to explain it.

But the report does provide an interesting perspective on the US, especially when it comes to technology, and it's not all off base. China points to US laptop border searches as a problem (and they are):

According to figures released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in September 2010, more than 6,600 travelers had been subject to electronic device searches between October 1, 2008 and June 2, 2010, nearly half of them American citizens. A report on The Wall Street Journal on September 7, 2010, said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was sued over its policies that allegedly authorize the search and seizure of laptops, cellphones and other electronic devices without a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. The policies were claimed to leave no limit on how long the DHS can keep a traveler's devices or on the scope of private information that can be searched, copied, or detained. There is no provision for judicial approval or supervision. When Colombian journalist Hollman Morris sought a US student visa so he could take a fellowship for journalists at Harvard University, his application was denied on July 17, 2010, as he was ineligible under the "terrorist activities" section of the USA Patriot Act. An Arab American named Yasir Afifi, living in California, found the FBI attached an electronic GPS tracking device near the right rear wheel of his car.

(Hollman Morris was in fact allowed into the US after State reversed its decision).

China also sees hypocrisy in American discussions of Internet freedom. China comes in regularly for criticism over its "Great Firewall," but it suggests that the US government also restricts the Internet.

While advocating Internet freedom, the US in fact imposes fairly strict restriction on cyberspace. On June 24, 2010, the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which will give the federal government "absolute power" to shut down the Internet under a declared national emergency. Handing government the power to control the Internet will only be the first step towards a greatly restricted Internet system, whereby individual IDs and government permission would be required to operate a website. The United States applies double standards on Internet freedom by requesting unrestricted "Internet freedom" in other countries, which becomes an important diplomatic tool for the United States to impose pressure and seek hegemony, and imposing strict restriction within its territory. An article on BBC on February 16, 2011 noted the US government wants to boost Internet freedom to give voices to citizens living in societies regarded as "closed" and questions those governments' control over information flow, although within its borders the US government tries to create a legal frame to fight the challenge posed by WikiLeaks. The US government might be sensitive to the impact of the free flow of electronic information on its territory for which it advocates, but it wants to practice diplomacy by other means, including the Internet, particularly the social networks.

(The cyberspace bill never became law, and a revised version is still pending in Congress.)

Finally, there's pornography, which China bans.

Pornographic content is rampant on the Internet and severely harms American children. Statistics show that seven in 10 children have accidentally accessed pornography on the Internet and one in three has done so intentionally. And the average age of exposure is 11 years old - some start at eight years old (The Washington Times, June 16, 2010). According to a survey commissioned by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 20 percent of American teens have sent or posted nude or seminude pictures or videos of themselves. (www.co.jefferson.co.us, March 23, 2010). At least 500 profit-oriented nude chat websites were set up by teens in the United States, involving tens of thousands of pornographic pictures.

[axordil]

The Chinese government citing the Washington Times as a source is really enough to make my head spin THEN asplode.

[elfshadow]

Porn is a human rights violation? Whatever, China.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Bradley Manning.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

One could say "China has no standing to lecture others about human rights abuses", but then again China is right this time. Bradley Manning.

The USA have very little standing left either.

[Primula Baggins]

I make no claims to American righteousness on Bradley Manning or many other issues, but . . . Tien-an-Men Square? The Cultural Revolution?

[axordil]

The US government has standards it fails to lives up to more often than it should.

The Chinese government has no standards.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

The US government has standards it fails to lives up to more often than it should.

The Chinese government has no standards.

Hmm.

This seems a rather silly statement. Is it? What standards does the USA fail to live up to, and what standards does China fail to have? What is the difference, except that the USA would appear to be guilty of hypocrisy, whereas China isn't?

Now, if THAT is the argument, it has legs, as the hypocrisy of the USA has been a bone of contention for "the world" for decades, but has given US citizens a comfort to excuse the heinous crimes of US foreign policy, whether the minor of Mossadegh in Iran 1953, to the eradication of Cambodia as a culture because of Vietnam. Yet, somehow, the USA STILL paints itself as "victim" in Vietnam...

So it is an interesting conundrum. China bad because....?

USA good because....?

[Primula Baggins]

This is tiresome; only people with the correct special prescription of refracting glasses can see that one country is worse for repeatedly falling short of a high ethical standard that another is for, oh, murdering hundreds or thousands of its citizens en masse for daring to protest, which is still better than killing them all and is therefore admirable because that country has no standards.

If a man who believes that murdering his neighbors is acceptable behavior does not, for a day or a week, do so, he is not therefore more virtuous than another man who shouts at his neighbor for playing music too loud despite believing people ought to be civil. If the first man murders his neighbor the following Tuesday, he is not admirable because he is being true to his (lack of) standards, nor is the second man despicable by comparison because he was being a hypocrite.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

This is tiresome; only people with the correct special prescription of refracting glasses can see that one country is worse for repeatedly falling short of a high ethical standard that another is for, oh, murdering hundreds or thousands of its citizens en masse for daring to protest, which is still better than killing them all and is therefore admirable because that country has no standards.

If a man who believes that murdering his neighbors is acceptable behavior does not, for a day or a week, do so, he is not therefore more virtuous than another man who shouts at his neighbor for playing music too loud despite believing people ought to be civil. If the first man murders his neighbor the following Tuesday, he is not admirable because he is being true to his (lack of) standards, nor is the second man despicable by comparison because he was being a hypocrite.

Ah! But perhaps we who are not US citizens might counter that murdering non-fellow citizens is just as important. Because, frankly, I DON'T believe a US life is greater than a non-US life...

Depends really on what we define as "neighbours", doesn't it?

[Primula Baggins]

I didn't say that. Whatever "that" is. Your hobby appears to be constructing twisted straw versions of other people's arguments and crowing that they're made of straw, plus they're crooked, aha!

Yawn.

This is a topic on which it would be possible to have an interesting conversation, but nothing interesting is being said at present.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I didn't say that. Whatever "that" is. Your hobby appears to be constructing twisted straw versions of other people's arguments and crowing that they're made of straw, plus they're crooked, aha!

Yawn.

This is a topic on which it would be possible to have an interesting conversation, but nothing interesting is being said at present.

Well, nothing particularly interesting gets said because there is such a narrow prescription; they bad, us good.

I would posit that the moral; high ground the USA usurps is based on a false prospectus of incredibly narrow parameters. Human Rights have become defined by those actions which can be presented as US triumphs. The Rights of the Child? Unsigned by the USA and... Somalia. So THAT doesn't count. Deaths? Only those that are internal to a state count. Those caused externally, through war, or exploitation, are ignored.

So, yes, I think there could be a real discussion, but it just ain't going to happem when US apologists refuse to engage with the... yawn... bigger picture.

[yovargas]

If only countries (or people) who've never done anything bad, or even against their own principles, had the "right" to condemn other's actions then...umm, I guess we'd have to let everyone do whatever they wanted without judgment. No thanks.

[River]

Porn is a human rights violation? Whatever, China.

Yeah, that's a bit weird. There's potential for human rights violations within the porn industry just as there's such potential in any industry, but porn as a violation in and of itself? Especially when it's really not that hard to avoid looking at it?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

If only countries (or people) who've never done anything bad, or even against their own principles, had the "right" to condemn other's actions then...umm, I guess we'd have to let everyone do whatever they wanted without judgment. No thanks.

Oh, I agree. But unfortunately the premise of US morality is pushed when the facts, from the Phillipine slaughter onwards, simply don't furnish this calumny with any credence.

Sadly, there are still people who actually believe this nonsense, and sit in their sandcastles condemning country x, or y, or z.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[Primula Baggins]

If only countries (or people) who've never done anything bad, or even against their own principles, had the "right" to condemn other's actions then...umm, I guess we'd have to let everyone do whatever they wanted without judgment. No thanks.

[River]

Well, then, in your ideal world, who stands up then? No one?

When you start sending threads in this direction I get sorely tempted to recite back some of the bad behavior the Brits have exhibited. But not only would that be useless and pointless, but I can't help but think that's what you want. And I'm too much of a stubborn little sh*t to give it to you.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

If only countries (or people) who've never done anything bad, or even against their own principles, had the "right" to condemn other's actions then...umm, I guess we'd have to let everyone do whatever they wanted without judgment. No thanks.

Then you agree with China criticising the USA.

QED

[yovargas]

Then you agree with China criticising the USA.

I certainly have no problem with them pointing out something someone is doing wrong if it is indeed wrong.

[Primula Baggins]

If a statement is true, it's true no matter who says it.