Jump to content

So Much For Improving Human Rights, Huh?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You think is is bad, just wait until his Holiness dies.

:huh: The DL seems to be quite healthy at the moment, all that good alpine air, so I think it won't matter for now.

Still, China has been persistant over not allowing the break up of the former empire, look at Hong Kong, Maccau, and the renegade 'Taiwan' occupied island of Formosa as examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That last line of yours, Xu Wen-Ting, right there. It really touched me!!

If only for that, I am grateful for the invention of the internet.

No, Xu, you are not alone. Your global friends -- and the de Coubertins -- here on GB are with you all the way -- if not in deed, then in spirit.

Thx,baron-pierreIV

English is not my mother language,maybe there's still somthing wrong with my post. But i read your every post very clearly and earnest everytime.

You do help me know more about the different ways of thinkings, minds and ideas from different parts of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess what bugs me the most about this situation is the fact that when people raised China's human rights stance and record as a reason not to award the 2008 Games to Beijing, the official response from the IOC and the Chinese government was that giving China the Games would put so much attention on Beijing and the Chinese government that they would be forced to consider new ways of managing their people and country. (Paraphrasing, of course.)

In fact, this is not the case, and a mere 6 months before the opening ceremonies, China is blatantly cracking-down on human rights and dissension in Tibet -- thumbing its nose at world opinion.

I just wish the IOC would have been honest and said "we don't care about nor wish to get involved in China's human rights issues. We think the Games afford us a wonderful financial opportunity, not to mention the virtual guarantee of a flawless Games with wonderful ceremonies and inspiring venues, due to China's ability to engage masses of people and resources with no worries about internal scrutiny or budget-watching."

At least that would be honest. But this crap suggesting the IOC and Games can influence a nation towards benevolence and respect for its citizens just makes me want to gag....

well said. what happend in Korea is not a guarantee that it will happen in Beijing. Beijing should not have been awarded these games in the first place but it seems dictator samaranch was grabbing everyone by the balls.
Link to post
Share on other sites
well said. what happend in Korea is not a guarantee that it will happen in Beijing.

The political changes in South Korea may or may not be replicated in China - it's still far too early to judge what the consequences of hosting the Games will be (they haven't even been staged yet!).

Even if there is no change in the dreadful human rights record of China, it was still right to give them the opportunity to change rather than no opportunity at all.

Isolating China will only make thing worse for its people and make their government all the more stubborn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isolating China will only make thing worse for its people and make their government all the more stubborn.

There's some truth in that. But on the other hand, the rest of the world and especially the IOC mustn't leave it uncommented that the Chinese regime has tried to fool them with its promises to improve the human rights situation in the lead-up to the Games. How can one accept "peace and harmony Games" under a regime for which violence and oppression are common instruments to enforce its policy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and now we're hearing reports this morning that the IOC will definitely be changing the dates of some of the events depending on the pollution levels. And that the Games could even be extended if required in order to accommodate all of the events. Sigh.

And every now and then, when on business in Toronto, I pass that big, unused piece of land that juts out into Lake Ontario that the Toronto 2008 bid had pegged as the centre of it's venue plan, with a wonderful stadium and aquatics complex, not to mention Olympic Village affording breathtaking views of the skyline of the city. And to think those Games could have been opening in 4 to 5 months, with relatively pollution-free air (compared to Beijing), moderate temperatures, no need to the air force to seed clouds miles away in order to prevent dust storms, and in one of the world's most cosmopolitan, multicultural cities. In a nation that for the most part, has an outstanding record on human rights. (Yes, there are blips -- but relative the the rest of the world, commendable.) It would have been so nice. Sigh again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's some truth in that. But on the other hand, the rest of the world and especially the IOC mustn't leave it uncommented that the Chinese regime has tried to fool them with its promises to improve the human rights situation in the lead-up to the Games. How can one accept "peace and harmony Games" under a regime for which violence and oppression are common instruments to enforce its policy?

That's one thing OIC should be thinking by now. China must go by the agreement it made with IOC, if not, there's going to be a big problem for this upcoming events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...and now we're hearing reports this morning that the IOC will definitely be changing the dates of some of the events depending on the pollution levels. And that the Games could even be extended if required in order to accommodate all of the events. Sigh.

And every now and then, when on business in Toronto, I pass that big, unused piece of land that juts out into Lake Ontario that the Toronto 2008 bid had pegged as the centre of it's venue plan, with a wonderful stadium and aquatics complex, not to mention Olympic Village affording breathtaking views of the skyline of the city. And to think those Games could have been opening in 4 to 5 months, with relatively pollution-free air (compared to Beijing), moderate temperatures, no need to the air force to seed clouds miles away in order to prevent dust storms, and in one of the world's most cosmopolitan, multicultural cities. In a nation that for the most part, has an outstanding record on human rights. (Yes, there are blips -- but relative the the rest of the world, commendable.) It would have been so nice. Sigh again.

So are you really concerned about the human rights of the people in China, or just bitter that Toronto was bypassed for the 2008 Games?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you really concerned about the human rights of the people in China, or just bitter that Toronto was bypassed for the 2008 Games?

I'm concerned about the situation in Tibet, but also it's clear to me that politically, culturally, and environmentally, and in terms of what's best for the athletes and the Games, perhaps Beijing was not the right choice. Not yet anyway.

China seems to have been able to meet the deadlines for venue construction, and will most definitely put on a great show, visually spectacular. The Games have also brought major change to Beijing's infrastructure. But in terms of China's statements that by this summer pollution would be cleaned-up, and that the Games would push it to a greater awareness of human rights... pfffffff. Those promises have been not kept. And if the challenge was too great to begin with -- the promises should not have been made.

Of course I would have loved to have seen the Games in Canada/Toronto this summer. That's a given. But that doesn't take away from what myself and others are stating here.

And now France is stating that it may consider asking the EU to officially boycott the opening ceremonies (but not the Games) if the situation in Tibet doesn't get fixed soon.Here we go. The IOC loves stability. I'm sure they must be worried at this point. Here we go.

Edited by juan antonio
Link to post
Share on other sites

The exiled spiritual leader said Tibetans needed to live side-by-side with Chinese people and reaffirmed that independence was "out of the question".

Dalai Lama urges end to violence

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7302654.stm

Link to post
Share on other sites
The exiled spiritual leader said Tibetans needed to live side-by-side with Chinese people and reaffirmed that independence was "out of the question".

He said and meant 'side-by-side' Confucius.

That doesn't mean living UNDER the rule of China. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
He said and meant 'side-by-side' Confucius.

That doesn't mean living UNDER the rule of China. :rolleyes:

I never said under the rule either!

You really know what independence means, don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I never said under the rule either!

2. You really know what independence means, don't you?

1. No, but the way you quoted it, that IMPLIED that you endorsed what the DL was saying. Which was 'side-by-side.'

2. I think so james. I have known no other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...